1920-04-23

INSPECTION AND SALE ACT-(AMENDMENT).

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. ,S. F. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture) it was ordered that on Monday next the House do resolve itself' into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution respecting the proposed amendment of the Inspection and Sale Act.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (for the Minister of Customs and Revenue) it was ordered that the House on Monday next do resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution for the amendment of the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.- Mr. Henders.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. W. A. Boys (Simcoe South), Bill No. 69 (from the Senate) to provide in Ontario and Prince Edward Island for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage was read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster (Acting Prime Minister) moved:
That on and after Monday next Government Notices of Motion and Government Orders shall have precedence on Mondays, until the end of the session, over all other business except Questions and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.
Motion agreed to.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I might be allowed to announce that if any motions and resolutions are on the Order Paper an opportunity will be given so that they may be dropped by any hon. member who wishes to deal with a cognate matter in debate.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister at this stage if we will be allowed to proceed with Mr. Demers' Bill to amend the Bank Act?


Mr. SPEAKER:: That has nothing to do with this motion; it comes under Public Bills and Orders.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to again have to call the attention 'of the House, and especially the attention of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), to the fact that I am receiving complaints every day from farmers in various parts of the Dominion regarding the income tax return form, to the effect that although they are very anxious to make their returns, they cannot procure the forms in French. I have to-day a letter from the postmaster of St. Hubert in my constituency, in which he says that for some time he has been beset by requests from the farmers for this form, that he has received none from the Government, and that although he has tried to get some at different points in the constituency, and even in Montreal, he has been unsuccessful. This form contains four pages and is quite complicated, and the farmers .of my province, as the Minister of Finance will readily understand, cannot possibly make their returns unless they get this form in French. The only reason I can see for the scarcity of this form is the reduction of the French staff at the Printing Bureau.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman has had unlimited latitude to put his question.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought the matter to my attention some days ago, and was then good enough to tell me that he would let me have the letters received by him showing where the de-

ficiency in the supply of this form was, when I promised the matter would he taken up immediately. Yesterday he was kind enough'to let me have the letters, and steps have already been taken to remove the causes of complaint. If the hon. gentleman will be good enough to let me have the further correspondence he refers to the matter will be followed up without delay.


Joseph Archambault: I shall do so with pleasure.



INSULT TO CARDINAL BEGIN IN NEW YORK.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) if he is aware that one of the oldest, ' most distinguished, and most respected of Canadian citizens, His Eminence Cardinal Begin, was grossly insulted at New York recently while waiting to embark for Europe. He was shoved back very roughly by an American detective, who used the following language-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I doubt very much if this is a matter which the hon. member could properly bring up on the Orders of the Day. He will have ample opportunity to put his question on other phases of the Order paper.


Pius Michaud: Just one more remark, Mr. Speaker. When the detective was told he was shoving the Cardinal he made the remark: "What the Hell difference does that make?"


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. It is somewhat questionable whether the hon. gentleman would be in order in setting this down under Questions; it is certainly not in order on the Orders of the Day.



DAYLIGHT SAVING IN OTTAWA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, I understand in the city of Ottawa, and also in the cities of Montreal and Toronto, Daylight Saving time will be put in force on the first of May. Therefore I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to apply this time to the sittings of the House and to the Civil Service?


George Green Foster: In answer to my hon. friend, taking the experience of last year into account, and in view of the fact that proclamation has already been issued stating that Daylight-Saving will be applied 
to the city, it seems to me that for the convenience both of the departments and of the members it is essential that our time shall synchronize with the city time, and therefore this will be carried out.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed -from April 22 consideration in committee of Bill No. 12-Hon. Mr. Guthrie-respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was
last before the committee, clause 22 and the proposed amendment of Mr. Fielding thereto were under discussion. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. DENIS:: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to protract unnecessarily the discussion of this clause, but I think that arguments have been advanced which should command the attention of the Government. Returning officers will have the power to nominate between two and. three hundred officials in each constituency-deputy returning officers, registrars, clerks, and so on. Is it fair that the Government should keep this patronage for themselves and their own nominees? We on this side are ready to receive any suggestion that may be made by the Government to make this clause more satisfactory. But if they insit upon the clause as it stands, I am afraid that we shall have to continue the debate as long as we can.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If the minister thinks he
can make headway by not answering my suggestion, he is mistaken. If I have to stand here alone and object to the Bill, I will do it; I can do it until six o'clock if necessary. I repeat that we are ready to accept any suggestion which will provide for an independent nomination of the returning officer, who will have the nomination of between two and three hundred election officials in his constituency at each election. The hon. member (Mr. Fielding) has brought in an amendment. We do not contend it is the only remedy for the situation, but in my opinion something should he done.
. Mr. GUTHRIE: I thought that this subject was pretty fully discussed yesterday afternoon, and with all due respect to my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) I do not think he

has brought any new light to bear on it. One point that was made yesterday afternoon-or attempted to be made; it did not appeal to me-was that the Government should show some good ground for rejecting the proposal. My idea was that good ground should be shown why the old and tried system should not be retained. We have had a long experience under that system and I have yet to hear of more than one case of wrong-doing on the part of a returning officer. The only case that was brought to the attention of the committee was the case of West Elgin, in which the returning officer, the sheriff, was removed from his office for wrong-doing. It has been stated that wrong has undoubtedly been done in the past; yet only that one case has beerr cited. I think we may fairly take it for granted that the system has worked well in the past and that good ground should be shown for any change.


Jean-Joseph Denis: What about the patronage in the appointment of two or three hundred election officials in each constituency?
. Mr. GUTHRIE:	If you wish to call it
patronage, why do so. But I submit that returning officers who have been appointed 'in the past either by Liberal Governments or by Conservative Governments have fulfilled their duty under the Election. Act, whatever it involved, and ' I assume they will do it again. The Government must assume the responsibility for the conduct of an election. It would be hard for a government to carry that responsibility and yet have nothing to say as to the men who are to carry out the details ot the Act. There is only one way of doing it: the Government must advise His Excellency, who will appoint the returning officers. We ask nothing new; we do not seek to change the law in any way. This system has been tried and proved and has done well. If my hon. friend can show me that generally it has failed-I do not mean in isolated cases -then there may be something to be said in favour of the amendment, but the concensus of opinion yesterday was that the old system had worked well.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: If my hon. friend wants a reason why the system should be changed, the one that strikes me most forcibly is that patronage has been abolished. This is the biggest plum in the patronage pie-the appointment of over 230 returning officers and of 100 enumerators by each of these, a total of 23,000 enumerators. There was nothing so large as that in the old patronage system. As I have said, patronage has been abolished; I myself heard the
Prime Minister abolish it two years ago, and on that occasion he was loudly cheered by hon. gentlemen on the other side. Now, this is a return to the old patronage system; it is diametrically opposed to the policy that the minister has been supporting. The ideal system would be to allow the general returning officer to select his own officials in each county to conduct the election; that would be placing the business entirely outside of politics. Apparently my hon. friend is not willing to do that. The amendment proposed to restrict the old patronage system to some extent, and I would expect the minister to accept that principle, because it is in line with the policy which he professes to follow. If we allow the Bill to go through as it is, it simply means that the Government are selecting a jury to try themselves. If the Government select as returning officers partisans in each of the counties and these partisans select one hundred more persons in each county to make the lists, that is equivalent, at any rate in cities and in close constituencies, to winning the election. That gives an immense advantage to the party in power, whatever party that may be; and if my hon. friend is desirous of avoiding criticism of that kind and is willing to give us a fair Bill, I can see no reason why he should not accept the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding).


Mr. LEGER:: In the past, prior to 1896, I remember well that we had, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, returning officers who, to my mind, were not men who should have been entrusted with that responsible duty. They did one part of their work satisfactorily, but as regards the duty of paying out salaries to the deputy returning officers and their clerks, they were somewhat slow; and I know that on many occasions the deputy returning officers and their clerks were not paid their salaries, nor did the owners of the polling booths receive the rent to which they were entitled. During the period that I was sheriff, I had the honour of being appointed returning officer on different occasions, and my experience of elections is that I have had this complaint made to me so many times that to-day I ask The Government to appoint in each constituency as returning officer the most responsible man they can find, I do not care whether he be Conservative or Liberal, in order that all the deputy returning officers and their clerks may be sure of receiving their salaries and that the owners of the polling booths may be satisfied that they

will obtain their rent. When I took charge as returning officer, the people in many places where I was not well known throughout the county were not quite satisfied to rent their houses for the day on account of the rents of polling booths not having been paid in the past, and the consequence was that I had difficulty in securing places for polling booths in my county. The Provincial Government subdivides each county into polling divisions, and in each division they state that the. polling booth must be at or near a certain place which they name, and the polling booth cannot be placed in a different part of the polling division. That being the case, we have certain limited sections within which to select these polling booths. Moreover, on account of the way in which the lists are made up according to these divisions and as, the women being allowed to vote, there is a large addition to the electoral lists, the returning officer will have in each division three or four or even five polling booths in order to poll all the votes. Therefore, a man of responsibility should be appointed, so that he will carry on his duties in a satisfactory manner. I know that in many districts in the constituency which I represent, deputy returning officers overdid their duty by initialling the ballots outside, and these ballots were distributed and went from one to another when the voters were in the ante-room to mark their ballots. If the Government want to retain the patronage system and name one of their friends, I have no objection to that because each party has done that in the past; or if they want to do away with patronage as they say they do, although I am doubtful, what I have stated is a reason why, at any rate, they should appoint a responsible man.


Mr. GUTHBIE:: With the general trend of the remarks of my hon. friend, I quite agree, and I think I can assure him that the Government will see that in each case a responsible man in the community will be appointed. As regards the non-payment of fees to the minor election officials, the Bill recognizes that the system which was in force in the past was not a good system, and by clause 76, a new provision is made. Subclause 5 of clause 76 provides that after the fees have been adjusted,
Such fees, allowances and disbursements shall he paid by warrant of the Governor General and shall he distributed by such person or persons as the Governor General in Council may direct to the several officers and persons entitled thereto.
Payment in future will be made directly from Ottawa to the individual. Formerly, 
it went to the returning officers, and I have heard of cases where poll clerks, constables and those who had allowed their premises to be used as polling booths had great difficulty in obtaining payment. It is considered that this new clause will remedy that to a large extent.


Mr. COPP:: I support the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) because of the experience I have had in my province as regards the contesting of elections. I do not know whether the same rule applies in other provinces, but in practically all cases in New Brunswick the returning officer is the high sheriff of the county. There have been exceptions to this rule, and I am bound to say that in New. Brunswick, so far as my experience goes, we had no trouble, even if somebody outside was selected by either Government which happened to have the responsibility of appointing returning officers. Good men have generally been selected, and I have no fault to find whatever as regards the men who have been selected. But my reason for referring particularly to the high sheriff as being the proper official to appoint as returning officer is the result of my experience of election contests in New Brunswick. I am speaking entirely in regard to my province, because I do not know what occurs in other provinces in that regard. In the election of 1917, the Government who were responsible for conducting that election in New Brunswick appointed the high sheriff in each county as returning officer. I may frankly say that the majority of these returning officers w'ere Liberals; some were Conservatives. In my constituency the returning officer wras a Liberal. He went through the county and after meeting local committees representing both sides he appointed the enumerators on their recommendation, as nearly as possible on a 50-50 basis. Throughout the whole province, where the returning officer was a Conservative he would have for his deputy a Liberal, and vice versa, and so on down the line. Both parties in this way were fairly represented at every poll. I think every representative from the province of New Brunswick in this House, irrespective of the party he supports, will agree with me that on the last election there was not one single case of wrong-doing or even of attempted wrongdoing throughout the province. I quite agree that it would not be well to confine these appointments to one particular class of official, because it might happen that the high sheriff of a particular county was

not the proper man for returning officer, but in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he would he a very proper person to hold the poll and conduct the election fairly and honestly. In our province the-y have had the experience. They hold the ballot boxes from one -election to another and know the routine and the whole procedure of conducting an election. To my mind they are very proper persons to act as returning officers. The amendment covers a very much wider field, but I would not for a moment suggest that these other officials would not make proper returning officers, for they hold responsible positions in the community and would realize that the people looked to them to conduct the election in a straightforward and honest manner. I think the amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is a reasonable one, and I am sure he would have no objection to including other classes of officials in his amendment if the minister should so desire. The Government have announced that they want to abolish patronage, so I think they should be more than willing to accept any reasonable 'suggestion looking to the conducting of elections in a fair and honest manner, and without any suspicion of wrong-doing. When the Government and the Opposition and the third party go before the country, the people want the conduct of the election to be divorced from any possibility or suspicion of wrong-doing. I am sure my hon friend realizes that. They do not want somebody appointed returning officer or registrar who will do the wrong thing, appoint their own friends, for instance. We must take human nature as we find it. A returning officer who is a strong partisan, when the candidate in whose success he is interested asks him to appoint so-and-so as registrar in a certain polling division, would not be likely to refuse to appoint the man recommended, and if that registrar puts on the lists names that should not be there, or strikes others off that should be there, it is evident that we cannot have a fair test of the public mind.


Mr. H. A. MAOKIE:: Does the hon. member suggest that the candidate can recommend to the returning officer those whom be would like to have appointed as officials for the taking of the poll?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I was speaking of registrars.


Mr.  H. A. MACK IE@: In the case of a large constituency, .how would the returning officer know who would be proper persons to appoint as enumerators, poll clerks, and so on, at the different divisions?


Arthur Bliss Copp: How would my hon. friend suggest that he would find out?


Mr.  H. A. MACK IE@: The way it has been done in the past is for the candidate to tell the returning officer who are the people that should be appointed in the different localities.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is exactly the point I was making. It is by that method that irregularities creep in. My hon. friend gives the whole case away.


Mr.  H. A. MACK IE@: How would the returning officer himself know whom to appoint?


Arthur Bliss Copp: He would go and see for himself. In our province the high sheriff has had long experience in conducting elections, and knows the men in the different localities whom he can trust to discharge faithfully and impartially the duties of the different offices. That is the very, reason why I am supporting this amendment. My hon. friend is perhaps speaking from experience. Perhaps that is what happened to my hon. friend in the last election.


Mr.  H. A. MACK IE@: It did.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That means that the Union Government candidates in the next election will have the say in making appointments, and not the returning officer. The candidates will have the selection of the registrars who will make up the voters' lists, and it is only human nature to expect them to appoint friends of their own party. That is one of the very best reasons we could have for supporting this amendment, so that the conduct of the election shall be taken out of the hands of the candidates themselves.


Mr. CROTHERS:: This is the first time, I think, that it has ever been contended in this House that the responsibility for the appointment of such an important officer should be abolished, for that is what the amendment means.


Mr. BUREAU:: No.
Mr. CROTBER.S: Let us see. Suppose we pass a statute making it compulsory upon this Government to appoint a certain official, one .of those mentioned in the proposed amendment a sheriff, for instance. The sheriff goes wrong in the conduct of the election. Who is responsible? This

Government? No. This Government did not appoint him sheriff. He was appointed sheriff by the Government of British Columbia or some other province, and this Government would very properly say: We are not responsible for that fraudulent election; the sheriff was responsible; he took part in the fraud; we did not make him sheriff, and under an Act of this Parliament we were obliged to appoint him to the office he held. Now it must be obvious to every hon. gen-. tleman on the opposite side that if this amendment were adopted we should abolish entirely the responsibility that rests on this Government in the appointment of these officers. _What responsibility would the Government have if they appointed a man of their own choice who was not a sheriff and who proved incapable? They would be responsible both to this House and to the country for having appointed an inefficient man. But under my hon. friend's proposition they would be free from responsibility because they would be in a position to say-


Jacques Bureau: They never admit responsibility anyway.


Mr. BELAND:: If this proposal were adopted you think the wrong man would be elected.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is no logic in
that.


Jacques Bureau: There is too much logic all around for you to answer.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was about to say that it would be no answer to this Government's repudiation of responsibility to say that a man was appointed sheriff by the Government of Quebec or the Government of Ontario, or any other Government. This Government would be in a position to say: We are not responsible because we appointed an officer whom we were compelled to appoint under a statute passed by this House. My hon. friend (Mr. Copp) and the hon. member (Mr. Sinclair), said in substance that hon. members on this side of the House have expressed themselves as being in favour of the absolute abolition of patronage. That is not so. Patronage has not been absolutely abolished, and neither my hon. friends on the other side of the House-


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Now, that is something new.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: -nor hon. gentlemen on this side, have contended, so far as I know, that patronage should be absolutely abolished.


Jacques Bureau: Our contention is that'you claim patronage to have been abolished, whereas in fact it has not.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You never contended that it ought to be abolished. I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the other side has ever suggested that the Government should not appoint a judge, one of the most important officers in the country. Have hon. gentlemen opposite ever contended that the Government should not appoint judges or senators by Order in Council? So that my hon. friends will see that patronage has not been abolished in toto, and there has never been any suggestion from either side o'f the House that it should be. This Government has exercised the power of appointing returning officers for fifty years. The Dominion Government, Liberal or Conservative as the case might be, has been responsible in the matter, and on the whole the system has worked perfectly satisfactorily. As my hon. friend, the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) has said, there has been only one case in the history of Canada where a man appointed returning officer for a constituency did not rise to the occasion and act honestly and with integrity between the two political parties, and that was in the case of West Elgin, the constituency which I have the honour to represent. That returning oflicer was appointed sheriff by the Liberal Government of Ontario, and he took an active part in defrauding the electors of that constituency of their choice of candidate to represent them in the legislature of the province of Ontario, and for that fraudulent conduct he was dismissed. So far as I know, from my own experience, that is the only instance in our history in which a returning officer failed to discharge his duties faithfully and well. Do we propose now, after the lapse of fifty years, to abolish a system that has worked exceedingly well? By whatever government, Liberal or Conservative, men have been appointed, there has been no question except, in that one case, of the intelligence and integrity of the appointee. What do my hon. friends say in substance? They say that the Dominion Government at Ottawa, either Liberal or Conservative, cannot be trusted to select a man to act as returning officer in any particular constituency, but we can implicitly trust a man named by the province of British Columbia, say. It is all right to appoint a sheriff nominated by the Government of Manitoba; it is all right to appoint a registrar of deeds appointed

by the Government of Nova Scotia or the Government of New Brunswick; but it is absolutely wrong for this Government to appoint any man. Any Provincial Government, no matter whether it be Liberal or Conservative, can safely be trusted to appoint a sheriff, a registrar of deed, a collector of customs, or a postmaster. They will all do; they are all intelligent; they are all honest. And there were three or four hon. gentlemen on the other side who took this view yesterday. The hon. member who moved the amendment said he knew a Conservative in Nova Scotia who had held a public office for forty-three years and who was a man of great intelligence and absolute integrity; and having served the public for forty-three years he was still a Conservative and an intelligent and honest man.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There may be some question about his intelligence.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) also spoke of a man whom he knew in Sherbrooke, another Conservative who was absolutely honest and of whose integrity there could be no question. Now, how absurd it is for our hon. friends to say that we cannot trust a man appointed by the Government of Canada, although for fifty years the Dominion Government has appointed men who have proved perfectly capable and whose characters have been absolutely irreproachable. It will never do, we are told, to have the Government at Ottawa appoint men, because no confidence could be placed in them; but we must appoint men who have been appointed by the Provincial Government. If we adopted the amendment we would absolutely abolish the safeguard which the people of Canada have in the responsibility that this Government owes to them. A sheriff may be guilty of incalculable fraud, a man may be elected under him who should never have been elected, and who is not the choice of the people. But the answer comes from this Government: We are not responsible; the Government of Nova Scotia, for instance, appointed him sheriff and under the statute of this House we made him returning officer Every one will see the absurdity of the position which we are asked to take.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has talked about the responsibility of the Government. Well, this responsibility is purely mythical, as my hon. friend knows. Let us see what it really would amount to in practice. Suppose this amendment were 101
adopted and, in an election, a sheriff were appointed in any province in Canada as returning officer. Then let us suppose that our friends opposite were returned to power

we may do violence to our imagination to that extent for the sake of argument-and the hon. member, having come back to Parliament, finds that there is a charge that the sheriff had not conducted the election fairly and that there was reasonable ground fqr complaint agaiifst him. Somebody in this Parliament gets up and makes that charge. What answer would my hon. friend make? We would not have to stretch our imaginations very far to think of my hon friend getting up and saying: "We are responsible for it; that man was recommended to us as a proper, honest, straightforward man and we, in the best of good faith, appointed him as returning officer; he has made this mistake, or he has committed this error or crime, but we did the best we could and therefore we are not responsible." And they would not be responsible. What responsibility would attach to them? They would say: "We appointed what we believed to be tire best man but he turned out not to be a good man." Therefore what responsibility would attach to the Government?


Jacques Bureau: They would not take any responsibility anyway.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no responsibility attaching to them anyway. When my hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General talks about the responsibility resting upon the Government for the selection of the returning officer, he knows as well as I do that the returning and other officers appointed for the purpose of carrying out the next general election will be selected on the recommendation of the Conservative or Unionist candidates. What responsibility attaches to this Government? What responsibility would there be if my hon. friends were returned to power and any question arose as to the proper conduct of a sheriff or any other officer who might be named for conducting the election? They would say: "We did the best we could." What is more liable to happen if my hon. friends appeal to the country than that they shall be sitting on this side of the House and they will say: "It does not make any difference to us whether we appointed the officers or not, you must take the responsibility for their conduct." When my hon. friend talks about the grave responsibility resting upon the Government in appointing these officers, he speaks of something which is a mere myth.



All we want is that proper officers shall be selected and if this amendment were adopted they -would be selected from the officials who are mentioned in the amendment. But in all probability it may not be adopted and my hon. friends will select the returning officers on the advice and recommendation of the Conservative candidates. That is not a fair and proper way to appoint these officials if we are going to do away with patronage. The Acting Solicitor General says that this system has worked well for a number of years. It may be so but when we are adopting a new Franchise Act if we can by making suggestions, in any way assist in getting a fair, reasonable and honest Franchise Act, it is our duty to make those suggestions and to give reasons for them. If this were reversed, if the Liberal party were in power and the time came for an election, I could in my constituency under this Act, if I were so minded, select returning officers and registrars in such a way that, I do not care who might be selected to oppose me, I could win the election. I want to say frankly that I believe that in New Brunswick and throughout the Dominion of Canada governments have not selected such men.


Mr.  H. A. MACK IE@: Would the hon. gentleman have any objection to the selection of the officers being left in the hands of the Dominion Alliance, the W.C.T.U. or such moral reform and temperance associations? These are people who, beyond doubt, are not politically appointed.


Jacques Bureau: Do you say that the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) represents them in Parliament?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Mackie) would be in a position to suggest that the Dominion Alliance or the W.C.T.U. should select these officers because I do not think he has very much information in regard to the tenets and professions of these organizations. Therefore, I do not think it is worth while taking up the time of the House in discussing that question. These men would be selected by the Liberal or Conservative candidate and if they were so minded the system might result in the selection of men who would leave names off the list that ought to be on it and add names to the list that should not be there, and in that way we would not have a fair or honest election.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Would my hon. friend have any objection to the appointment as 	,
returning officer of some good, intelligent labour man in the city of Moncton?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not the slightest.


Avard Longley Davidson: Then why does he want to restrict the Governor in Council?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Because I believe we would not get a labour man selected by the Government in the city of Moncton. We have not in the past had any labour men selected in the city of Moncton as returning officers and I do not think we have had any in the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Would my hon. friend have any objection to enlarging the number of persons who might be selected by adding a returned soldier or a member of a city, town or county council or o>f a workingman's union? Is there any reason for excluding such persons from this list?


Arthur Bliss Copp: There is no reason except
that the idea is to keep the selection of returning officers as closely as possible to the line of m n who are more or less responsible to the people so that they know and realize that when they are selected, whether by this 4 p.m. government or a Liberal government, or a local government for those different positions.


William Sora Middlebro: By patronage.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does my hon. friend admit
that the Government are still carrying on patronage?


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend perhaps does not know what I mean. A majority of the officials whom my hon. friend has mentioned have themselves been selected by patronage and what the hon. gentleman desires this House to do is to deprive the Government of the privilege of appointing any others who have been selected by patronage.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend is entirely
wrong.


William Sora Middlebro: Why?


Arthur Bliss Copp: In saying that they are appointed by patronage. They are not.


William Sora Middlebro: Who, for instance?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The sheriff of the city of *
St. John and the municipal clerks and secretary-treasurers.


William Sora Middlebro: How does my hon.
friend know by what influence the city clerk or any other officer of a municipal council was elected or appointed? What

right have you to say that the means by which that gentleman might be selected are any more proper than the means by which this returning officer would be selected by the Government?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Would the hon. gentleman
say that the clerk in the town from which he comes was selected by political patronage?	~


William Sora Middlebro: This government is
as much entitled, and is just as liable, to make an appointment that is proper as an *officer appointed by a city or town council.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has shifted
his ground again.


William Sora Middlebro: Not at all.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend cannot get
around it by asking any such question as that. I will ask the hon. gentleman if any [customs house officer, postmaster, sheriff, city or town clerk or municipal secretary-treasurer in his constituency would not be a fair and reasonable man to hold an election.


William Sora Middlebro: I have not said he was not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Don't you admit that he is?


William Sora Middlebro: My argument does
not proceed upon that basis. I contend that selection can be made under this clause of a man who is just as good and just as able to perform the service required as any other official.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That part I will admit at
once. But my hon. friend is not prepared to say that any one of the officials named in the proposed amendment would not be admirably fitted to conduct an election in his own riding. What he does say is this: " No, we won't accept any of those men, but w'e will accept a man that I may recommend to the Government to be my returning officer."


William Sora Middlebro: I have not said anything of the kind. On the contrary I believe we can make a very proper selection from any of the officials mentioned.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then you ought to support the amendment.	.


William Sora Middlebro: No. I say we have the right to-day, and perhaps in some cases we would make our selection from among such officials, but we do not want to be compelled to do so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, because my hon. friend wants to nominate the returning officer in his own riding.


William Sora Middlebro: That is perfectly
right because then I have the responsibility.


Mr. FIELDING:: I have already spoken on this subject and I have no desire to repeat myself. I rise only to point out to my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) that nine-tenths of the very eloquent speech he made a few minutes ago is based upon an entire misapprehension of this amendment. I say "misapprehension" because I , know my hon. friend too well to assume that he would intentionally misrepresent me. Again and again he said: Under this amendment we are willing to trust an official appointed by the Provincial Governments, but we are not willing to trust an official appointed by the Federal Government. My hon. friend is entirely wrong. This list contains a number of officials who receive their appointments from the Government at Ottawa, and I think I am safe in stating that although in West Elgin probably half a dozen of the class of officials enumerated in that list have been appointed by the hon. gentleman himself, yet we are willing to trust them. So when he says we will trust only men appointed by the local governments my hon. friend is entirely wrong.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I did not say "only."


Mr. TURGEON:: I have listened with attention to my esteemed friend, the exMinister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), as I do every time he rises in fhis House, and I am led to believe that in regard to appointments made by the Provincial Governments my hon. friend has forgotten one essential thing-that since 1911 appointments of the class of officers enumerated in the amendment have been made exclusively by the Conservative party, and that probably there is scarcely a collector of customs-


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me one word in reply to the Te, marks he has just made, as well as to those recently made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). In speaking about the Opposition being unwilling to trust any man appointed by this Government, I had no reference at all to the officers now operating under this Government, such as postmasters, collectors of customs, collectors of inland revenue, and so on; I was referring to men that this Government might appoint from this time forward as returning officers under this Act	,


Mr. TUEGEON:: This amendment enables the Government to make their appointments from among customs officers, and, practically speaking, every one of them now holding office is an appointee of the present Government. Therefore we are not partial in respect to the class of men to be appointed. The same remark applies to postmasters-there is scarcely a postmaster who has not been appointed by the present Government. Therefore the Government will find that they have all their appointees since 1911 from whom to select returning officers. But there is another reason why I am so strongly in favour of this amendment. The hon. member for Kent county (Mr. Leger) said he wanted to see men of responsibility appointed as returning officers. By this amendment the Government is in a position to appoint men as returning officers from among a thoroughly responsible and substantial class, for the officials mentioned in the amendment are men who have won the respect of the community by the faithful discharge of their duties, and therefore it may be safely assumed that they will so act as returning officers that their reputation will not suffer, for they cannot leave the country if they have done something of a questionable character at an election.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is .the point.


James Gray Turgeon: They are men who are held in the highest respect by the community, and in the interests of themselves and their families they must so act as to preserve that respect. So the Government is sure to have the right class of men appointed as returning officers. These men have by the faithful discharge of their duty gained the respect and esteem of the community, and they may be trusted to do nothing to injure their reputation.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Does the hon. member insinuate that a candidate would select a "high binder" as a returning officer, who would leave the country after the election? _
Mr. TUEljJiON: Not at all; but mistakes are made by the most honourable men in the selection of appointees.


Jacques Bureau: Even by ministers of the Crown.


James Gray Turgeon: Yes. I do not say that they would, do it dishonestly, but such mistakes may be made. The reputation of these officials is the best guarantee for the proper discharge of their duties as returning officers, and I believe this amendment

is broad enough to give us not only officials appointed by the Federal Government, but officials holding their appointments from the provincial and municipal authorities. Therefore I hope and trust that the minister will accept the suggestion contained in this amendment.


Mr. GEIESBACH:: This is an Act which is applicable to the whole Dominion, but up to the present the discussion has been confined largely to hon. gentlemen representing constituencies in the eastern and central portions of the country. In so far as the amendment is applicable to the West, I would say that it is unworkable. There is no guarantee or assurance that the persons named will be available for this service; that in many western constituencies they will be found at all. In fact, I can mention constituencies in which none of the persons named are to be found. One of these is West Edmonton.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is my hon. friend not
aware that the amendment provides that if none of the officials named are available the Government may nominate whomever they please?


William Antrobus Griesbach: That is just the point I am coming to. In many Western constituencies these officials named in the amendment cannot be found. In any case, I rather think that the municipalities who employ them will not always be ready to consent that they shall be taken from their service for two or three months for the purpose of conducting an election. If the amendment is to have any value at all, a large number of officials will have to be added to that list,-so large a number, in fact, that you will be getting back to precisely the effect of the Bill as it now stands.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely my hon. friend
has failed to read the amendment. If these officials cannot be found; if they refuse to serve; if their employers will not allow them to accept appointments,-if any of these "ifs" happen, then the Governor in Council may appoint any competent man. My hon. friend's argument, therefore, is based on a misapprehension.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Therefore the amendment is quite unnecessary.


William Stevens Fielding: That is quite different from the view my hon. friend expressed a moment ago-that the amendment is unworkable. It is perfectly workable. If any of these officials can be found; well and good. If not, the Government have 'a. free hand. What more can be asked?


William Antrobus Griesbach: The effect of the
amendment is to have a state of affairs prevailing in one part of Canada which does not prevail elsewhere, whereas the Bill is intended to apply to the whole of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill applies to the whole of Canada, hut what my hon. friend describes as possible in one place is equally possible in another. In a large city-Montreal, for example-there are many constituencies, and so many returning officers are needed that it may not be possible to obtain them all from this list. The condition applying to West Edmonton may apply anywhere, and this amendment fully covers it.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I am sure it is the
feeling of hon. gentlemen who have spoken that the law should be administered in a way that is fair to all. I have a proposal to make which, I believe, if agreed to by the Government and by the Opposition, would be in the best interests of all concerned and would give no advantage to either the iGovernment or the Opposition. I suggest that in each constituency, wherever possible-and I believe it would be possible in ninety per cent of the constituencies- the returning officers be selected from among those who have become identified with and are supporters of the new national policy. Under that arrangement neither Government nor the Opposition would get any advantage, and the law would be fairly administered.


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Chairman-


Pius Michaud: May I put a question
to my hon. friend (Mr. Johnston)?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order. Mr. Power
has the floor.


Pius Michaud: Is the new party a
political party?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is a movement, not
a party.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I understand it, the
Acting Solicitor General argues that these officials have been appointed in* this way for the last fifty years and that the system has worked well.


Jacques Bureau: Except in 1917.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It may be true that we
have had this system for the last fifty years, and it may or may not have worked well. But in the short time during which I have been interested in politics and in the organizations of elections I have found that invariably the first thing done by the
political organization is to endeavour to obtain control of the nomination of the election officers. Now, if this were not important to the political party which is organizing for an election, I hardly think that they would go to the trouble that they do. If we cannot go so far as to say that under the arrangement proposed by the Bill, "the cards are stacked,''we can at least say, in the gambling parlance, that there is " a large percentage in favour of the house ''-the house in this case being the Government. There 'will be such a percentage if the Government aTe allowed to name something like 22,000 henchmen and political heelers all over the country. My short experience in elections has taught me this, too:	That in the large number of cases
the men appointed as returning officers are the men whom the candidate thinks he can use for his own purposes and his own advantage. I have come to the conclusion after studying this matter for some time, and I have no doubt that it is the experience of most other hon. members, though they do not not want to say so. Now, if these election officers are appointed by a prominent official, an official who has some responsibility, the result is apt to be more satisfactory. The returning officer should be a man respected by the community. If he is selected from the list suggested by the amendment, we have some guarantee that he is an honest man; we have some guarantee that he will exercise his functions in a fair and impartial manner. Under the provision as proposed, our only safeguard is the honesty of the candidate supporting the Government, or-I do not wish to impugn the honesty of any hon. gentleman opposite, but this is most likely to be our only safeguard-the honesty of the political henchmen of the candidate; the honesty of whoever happens to be the head of the political organization. In all elections, with the exception, perhaps, of those held by the saintly gentlemen mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Griesbach), the Dominion Alliance and others, there is a certain amount of evasion of the law. The candidate, as a rule, does not wish to know of these evasions, so he leaves the matter to his more discreet partisans, and his discreet partisans, if they can thereby give some degree of favour to their candidate, appoint only those men who are willing to extend that favour. Under the circumstances, it is only fair and reasonable that the amendment should carry.
As to the question of responsibility, the officials named in the amendment are re-

sponsible men; they are respected by the community, otherwise they would not have remained in the positions which they occupy. But in any case, our experience since the last election has been that the .Government have refused to accept responsibility for the acts of their agents. We have heard of ballot boxes being stuffed; of the overseas soldiers' votes being switched from one county to another; of hundreds of votes being given in constituencies where they should not have been given; of soldiers being forced to vote under the threat [DOT]of being sent back to the front line trenches. We have heard all this time and again in this House since the last election, and I do not wish to go into it again. The Government have refused to take the responsibility, saying: What the soldiers want, we want, and the soldiers have done well by putting the Government in power and we have done well by the soldiers; therefore, if there was corruption, even if there had been in this election something that was illegal, we were perfectly right and we accept the full responsibility because the soldiers did it, and we encouraged then:. That is to say, because the soldiers did wrong and because we did wrong ip encouraging the soldiers, everything was all right.. Therefore, any government could do that, and the next time this may not be for the soldiers; it may be that the Government will say: We have allowed the farmers to do it. Therefore, the thing may be quite right, because the farmers of the soil were in favour of it. I maintain, as I have said before, that when we go into this question, we should see to it that "the pei-centage is not in favour of the house," that we have a fair and square deal. We do net ask for any favours. We know as well as most members of this House know that the life of this Government is but of short duration.


Mr. OASGRAJN:: The shorter the better.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We are quite sure that hon. gentlemen opposite will not have to assume this responsibility after the next election. Therefore, we ask them to accept this amendment for their own sake, because they maay be out of power for a long time.
Mr. GRIESBAiCH: The hon. gentleman does not believe that 'this proposal will be as efficacious as he said a moment ago that it would be. He seems to be quite sure that it will not be needed.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not quite understand the hon. gentleman. Will he repeat his remarks?


William Antrobus Griesbach: If I have to explain-


Jacques Bureau: Just repeat; we could not hear on this side.


William Antrobus Griesbach: The hon. gentleman, first of all, begins by saying that the present proposal, using his language, which is not familiar to me, I may say, gives "the percentage to the house," suggesting that the advantage will all be with the Government, and then he proceeds to say that as a result of the election held, I assume, in accordance with this Bill, this Government will disappear.


Jacques Bureau: Not under this Bill. You may steal it under the Bill as you did last time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am under the impression -and I think the country is with me-when I say that nothing can possibly be done by this Government to save it from the disaster which is about to overtake it. We have been told that the list contained in the amendment is so long that we might add any one else, the labour man, the returned soldier, any class of citizen in the community. That is quite true, but the officials named in the amendment are all officials who have some standing in the community, who are responsible to the community for their good conduct.


Jacques Bureau: They are all under bond.


Hugh Guthrie: They are not under bond to this Government.


Jacques Bureau: That makes no difference.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We care little about their responsibility to this Government, but we care a great deal about their responsibility to the people of Canada, and these officials are already responsible to the people of Canada in that if they commit an illegal act, there is a penalty attached to that. Under the circumstances, I think the Acting Solicitor General ought to accept the amendment of my hon. friend.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS:: I take it that the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) is that the selection of returning officers must be made from men of repute in the community, and he enumerates a list of supposedly reputable men holding certain positions in a constituency. I am not going to criticise or say that these men whom he enumerates are not respectable and reputable citizens in a great

many portions of Canada. But as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Gries-bach) has said, this is not a Bill for Nova Scotia or Quebec; this is a Bill for the Dominion of Canada. And when you say that you must preferably, as I would assume from the discussion, select a returning officer from amongst the sheriffs, that may apply in Nova Scotia, Quebec, or even Ontario; but what happens when you get into Western Canada? We have possibly two or three sheriffs in the whole province of Alberta; the Edmonton district to-day has not a sheriff at all. We have possibly two registrars of deeds in the whole province, .men whose duties are so arduous that every minute of their time is occupied, so that they could not perform the duties of returning officer. As regards collectors of customs, we have in probably the four largest cities of Alberta men who are holding the position of collector of customs, who are reputable, responsible citizens, occupying an exalted position, drawing possibly a large remuneration; but the duties of those men are so arduous that it would be impossible for them to leave their duties in order to take two or two and a half months to perform the duties of returning officer in a constituency. As regards the postmasters, if you take a postmaster in a small community away from a large city, you have a man drawing the magnificent salary of possibly $35 a year, and he does not necessarily have to be a man of repute in his community. The trouble is to find men to keep post offices in Western Canada; indeed, men are almost urged to accept the positions, and it does not follow that they are the most reputable men in the community. As regards secretaries of municipalities, we do not have municipalities in Alberta except in a very few instances; we have secretaries of local improvement districts who get, perhaps, $200 or $300 a year from that position. It does not follow that a man occupying that position is the prominent citizen that we have heard spoken of here to-day, who should be charged with the duty of acting as returning officer in a constituency. We could select almost any one outside of that list, and we would have better men than those who are enumerated in that list. The hon. gentleman provides for that. He says: If you cannot select them from that list, we shall allow you to select them from some other people. Eor my part, I think the clause as it is now is quite satisfactory and permits us to select the best men for the position of returning officer in a constituency. I have had some extended experience in political life now, and I have yet to hear of one case where a returning officer violated the vows of his office and committed fraudulent acts, and I doubt very much if there are many cases in the whole Dominion of Canada where a finger could be pointed at any act which has been performed by any returning officer.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I want to point out what appear to me to be discrepancies in the views put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite. Yesterday afternoon and this afternoon also, we heard them stating over and over again first that the Government had to assume the responsibility, and then the list as now submitted is a list that is too narrow, that will not allow the Government to choose at leisure or properly the particular person who shall be named returning officer. I am sorry hon. members opposite do not more often read the very interesting speeches delivered in this House by the Acting Prime Minister !(Sir George Foster).
I always make a point of listening carefully to what the Acting Prime Minister says, and of even reading his speeches in Hansard. This is what he said yesterday afternoon, in direct contradiction, I submit, of the two points submitted by our friends on the other side, namely, that we are trying to take the responsibility away from the Government, and secondly, that our list i? too narrow. This is what he said:
My hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has given^ a list of certain officials within the range of which shall be limited the choice of returning officers by whatever government is in power and is directing the election. As I read the amendment, any one of eight, ten, twelve, fifteen, twenty or thirty different persons may be chosen by the Government as returning officer; the list is a pretty generous one. The reason for proposing that limitation is that a government may start out with the idea of using influence which it ought not to use by choosing as returning officers men of their own political belief. Well, if the Government really sets out with that idea in mind, to what extent is th* carrying out of that intention limited by r<-stricting appointments as returning officers to a list of twenty or thirty officials? It will be Quite possible for a malevolently-minded government to select from that list at least one person from each electoral district who may or can carry on its nefarious designs. The amendment, therefore, is nothing more or less than camouflage. The whole thing depends on whether the Government does set out with the idea of using its returning officers for wrong and evil purposes.
The Acting Prime Minister could not have made it more plain that the Government will have full responsibility for nominations under this amendment. The Government will still have the power of nomination

in their hands, and if they choose to do wrong they can do so.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does my hon. friend
agree with the sentiments he has just quoted?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do and I do not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
i	[DOT] If hon. members who are
laughing had had more experience they would know that it is very seldom that a v/itness, and I am now in the witness box, answers a question simply by Yes or No! There are many questions which a man cannot answer in that way. I asked a ques-*>on of the Minister of Justice last night, *o which he could not give me a Yes or No answer, because it was impossible. So my hon. friend need not think he has scored such a big success, because I did not answer Yes or No to his question. My answer is that the Acting Prime Minister is absolutely right when he says that if this Government wants to perpetrate any wrong in an election they can do it under this amendment, for the list is wide, but, remember, it takes two in this particular case to commit a wrong-the Government and the official who receives the nomination. Under this amendment the Government could appoint only responsible officials, who would not forfeit their position or their honour under any considerations, I believe. Under the present system -I am not saying that it is done, but it can be-the Government may appoint whoever they like; they may appoint a person who is absolutely unworthy. I do not think they would do that intentionally, but they might be misled into doing it by the partisans in the particular constituency concerned. We know how these things are done. It has already been explained to this committee. Partisans in a constituency gather together and submit to the Government the name of an official for returning officer. They say to themselves:	Here is
our man. If we get him appointed, we shall have the nomination of the deputy returning officers, and of all the registrars, clerks, and so on. Do they &do that with the intention of stealing the election, and of committing a fraud? Not generally, but that might happen some times. In nearly every case it is done with the intention of getting the patronage in these appointments. When the returning officer has been appointed, he knows that it is due to this committee or the candidate, and the next step is for the committee or for the candidate to approach him and 
say: I would like Mr. So-and-so appointed deputy returning officer. More than that, they hand the returning officer a list of the men they want appointed as registrars, clerks, and so on. Some one might ask, do you think the returning officer would lend himself to such a practice as that and appoint whoever the candidate or the committee recommends? Well, it has been done in a great many constituencies.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Where?


Jean-Joseph Denis: In my constituency, in the next constituency to it, in three-quarters of the constituencies of Canada in the last general election.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Do you know what you are talking about?


Jean-Joseph Denis: It was done not with a view to committing electoral fraud, but with a view to distributing the patronage.


Jacques Bureau: And winning the election.


Mr. DENTS:: It may have been so in some cases, but I am not going so far as to say that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Does the hon. member know anything at all about the conditions in the province of Ontario, for instance, or is he speaking of a province with which he is more familiar?


Azellus Denis: I am speaking from the knowledge which I gathered generally during the last Dominion election, and afterwards, in this House, Where the frauds which were committed were denounced - time and again. The hon. member knows perfectly well that in the last general election, frauds of the worst possible kind were perpetrated. He must remember the discussions we had in this House. But even if I had not been in this country at the last general election, if I had been in Europe I would know enough to say what I am saying now with respect to this system of patronage which has existed for the last fifty years in the nomination of these officials.
I am not speaking of any wrong-doing, but simply of patronage. I say that this' system of patronage which has existed for the last fifty years was continued at the last general election. It goes on more or less all the time. Now we want to stop that. We want to prevent a set of men who are working for a certain candidate from securing the nomination of a returning officer and handing him a list of the registrars and clerks he shall appoint throughout the constituency.


Avard Longley Davidson: Would my hon. friend believe in restricting the returning officer in the selection of his deputies by some such scheme as the amendment proposes, or would he give the returning officer a free hand in that matter?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would give him a free hand, although this may be subject to discussion from a different point of view. The amendment leaves absolute discretion to the returning officer in the appointment of his assistants. I know that in the province of Quebec, where a Liberal Government has been in power since 1897, the officials who are chosen as returning officers are sheriffs, prothonotaries, or registrars of deeds, and these officers make it a point to consult both candidates. My hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) smiles, but it is true. I can testify to that. It has been done in every election in every constituency in the province of Quebec.
Men who occupy public offices of importance, and by reason of which they have an enviable standing in 'their communities, have too great a sense of responsibility, not only to the public but to themselves, to think for a moment of favouring one party or the other, or of giving undue advantage to either. Their sense of fair play compels them to consult both sides, and as a matter of personal experience I know that time and again they have communicated with representatives of both parties and have nominated the deputy returning officers, clerks, etc., from both sides. I am not aware that thiis was done in the last federal election. However, I think that I 'have said sufficient to dispose of the contention that registrars, prothonotaries, etc., must still be partisans merely by reason of the fact that they happened to be appointed by a partisan government some years ago. I have sufficient faith in the honesty of men who hold such high and important positions to spurn the suggestion that they would allow their previous political affiliations and cieeds to influence them to the extent of bestowing patronage entirely on one party to the disadvantage of the other. I do not believe that they would do such a thing, and I know that in the province of Quebec they unquestionably do not. But apart from every other consideration, would we not be more secure in the nomination of these men than in the nomination of some man or other whom this Government, without any possible knowledge of local circumstances, might be advised to appoint? I want it distinctly understood, as I have said, that I impute no improper
motives or intentions to the Government, for I do not think for a moment that the Government would deliberately nominate any man whom they knew to be unworthy. But surely the Government must see that they cannot possibly consider all the circumstances that should weigh in the nomination of these men. The Government cannot possibly find time to go into the minutiae, to study the.'peculiar conditions in every corner of the country, and so to acquaint themselves with the circumstances as to be able to take the necessary precautions in order that their nominations may be perfectly just and impartial. I say that they cannot do that. They have to rely upon some one in the constituency whose advice they have to take. If their adviser happens to be a straightforward and honest man the nominations will be just. But if he happens to be crooked there is no hope of fair play. It was said a moment ago by some hon. gentlemen that if a returning officer were found to be guilty under this Act he could be brought before the proper tribunal, but it was also pointed out that he could very well leave the country after the election, and it does not require much argument to show that a man who is not responsible to the public but is only temporarily resident in any district can easily escape the consequences of any misconduct on his part. He might perpetrate any sort of fraud while the election was on, and might completely wreck an election in some particular constituency, and the moment the election was over he could skip out of the country. Of course, this is a hypothetical case of abnormal character, and I do not at all base my argument on it. But I mention it to show the extent to which things may go. On the other hand, if you select a man who has a recognized standing in the community and who is jealous of his good name, you have every chance of justice and fair play, and you may depend upon it that he will try to act fairly as between the parties. Suppose in any constituency any candidate should approach such a man and address him in this manner:	"You know
that I was the sitting member before the . House dissolved, and I should be glad if you would make certain nominations which I shall suggest to you." What would happen? This officer would not say: "I have no business with you, Mr. Candidate; I don't care to speak with you; you had better go home." In such a case the candidate would be of course helpless. But if you hkd some irresponsible man appointed to the office, material influence might easily be brought

to bear upon him, and it is not difficult to imagine what might pass between the two.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. member
think that it is proper for a candidate to interfere with an officer in such a manner?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Well, we all try to get some nominations made in our favour. Did not the hon. gentleman himself interfere in the last election?


Avard Longley Davidson: No.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Oh, no, I suppose not.


Avard Longley Davidson: I agree with the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment in the desire to have nothing to say as a member about these matters.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If my hon. friend did not interview the officer personally he must be an exception, because we know that these things are done. Where two or three hundred people are being nominated it is but natural that both sides should desire to see that the nominations are made as fairly as possible. I do not say that the hon. gentleman interfered. There may not have been any interference in his case, and I give him the benefit of the doubt; but in nine cases out of ten we know that this is done, and there is no use in being hypocritical about it.


Avard Longley Davidson: Does the hon. member impute hypocrisy both to myself and to the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) ? We both declared our intention to have nothing to do with the appointing of these people.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend apparently cannot understand that I am not casting any aspersions on him nor am I alluding to him when I say that we should frankly admit what is a matter of common knowledge, and not indulge in any hypocritical pretensions. I am not speaking of the hon. gentleman in particular or of any one else in this chamber, but I say that there is no use in denying the fact to which I have referred. If in the last election or any other election the hon. gentleman was simply a phlegmatic spectator, coolly looking on and caring not whether this man or the other was appointed deputy returning officer, or how trwo or three hundred nominations were made, I give him credit .for being an unnatural exception to what is undoubtedly a general rule. No hon. gentleman in this House will pretend for a moment that both sides are not anxious to have these nominations fairly made. No one will seriously suggest, I think, that

it does not .make a very substantial difference as to how these two or three hundred persons who exercise an important influence on the final results, are disposed of; nor will any one pretend that it would not be a mighty advantage to the party who could secure their appointment to suit themselves. To come back to the point from which I was distracted by imy hon. friend. This amendment is wide enough to enable the Government to choose competent men who will have enough time to devote to the positions to which they are appointed. The amendment is wide and broad enough to allow the Government to assume the full responsibility for the nomination. Under these circumstances, until my hon. friends on the other side have answered the arguments brought forward yesterday afternoon by the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister, I submit that our contention should be upheld.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: As I understand it, the mover of the amendment aims at getting rid of partisanship in the conduct of elections. In reading the remarks he made yesterday I could not see that any case had been made out against the existing system, that there had been any rank cases of partisanship in the conduct of our elections or that the new system proposed would improve the old. The government that would be in power would have the opportunity of selecting under this amendment a great many men who might still be extreme partisans. They are not compelled to select a sheriff or a registrar. They can select the secretary-treasurer of a municipality, as I read it, and, taking my own constituency, there would be a large number of men of that type from whom they could select. You could very easily get a man who would be just as extreme a partisan in an election under any such system. If the intention was to go and find men who might be improperly influenced, under this amendment, it is possible to get men of that kind. In all the elections I have contested I have had the responsibility of naming the returning officer. I am on fairly good terms with my political opponents and I have never heard any of them complain of the action of the returning officer who was appointed. I think the average member of Parliament is anxious to place in that position a man who will conduct the business honourably and uprightly so that there will be no criticism directed against himself personally. I think that is the ambition of the average member of Par-

liament. I do not think that we can improve the existing system by this amendment. If a man is determined that he is going to have a partisan as a returning officer he can get him under this amendment because there are plenty of opportunities to get a man of that type.
Reference has been made to the conditions in Western Canada. I will be local in my remarks because I can deal with the situation a little better from the local standpoint being familiar with the conditions there. The sheriff for the judicial district of Lethbridge has no assistant. If he were appointed a. returning officer he would have to give all his time to the position and there is no one to do his work as sheriff. Mention is made of the registrar. In Alberta there are only two registrars, one located in Calgary and the other in Edmonton. In the balance of the constituencies it is impossible to select a -registrar. Then we come to the secretary-treasurer of a city, incorporated town or municipality. That would give an opportunity for the selection of men who were still interested in politics and who were identified with one or the other of the political parties. I imagine that under an amendment of this nature a man who Was a partisan would probably select one of the municipal officers because there would be just as much danger of partisanship in a selection of that kind as under the existing system. I am as anxious as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) to remove all danger of corruption and dishonesty in connection with our elections but I do not think that a case has been made out to 5 p.m. show that the existing system is so bad that it can be improved by the adoption of this amendment. That is my view after having read the debate which took place yesterday and after having heard some of the remarks which have been made to-day.


Mr. McKENZIE:: We are not all as fortunate as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) who need not care very much which party is in power because he is always with the party in power. Consequently, he need not fear the result of any appointment. Some of us have the habit of staying on our own side of politics and must submit to the fortunes of our party. For that reason we desire to see that proper care is taken in the appointment of officials to handle serious business of this kind bn behalf of the people. When the old conditions were in vogue the returning officer
had nothing to do as his functions were purely administrative. He simply had to do certain things which were laid down for him but the present conditions are entirely different. The officer whom we are taking power to appoint makes the list. That was not so under the old conditions. In our province the lists were made by the officials of the municipality appointed and entirely under, municipal control. Even the Provincial Government in our province had nothing to do with the lists. The councils in the different municipalities appoint the officers to deal with the lists and the local government have nothing to do with the lists upon which they run their own elections. Consequently there is no partisanship because in our province the councillors do not all belong to the same political parties and whatever the complexion of the council may be the councillors appoint their own officers.


Mr. MARTIN:: May I say to the hon. gentleman: Except in Halifax?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would not say that nothing good ever comes out of Halifax. Sometimes the councillors in Halifax have a way of doing their own business. I have heard no complaint. What my hon. friend says may be so in Halifax but in the part of the province from which I come the majority of the council of the county of Cape Breton has been Liberal for many years and the councillors who are not supporting the majority have the selection of their own [DOT] officials and in that way control the making of the lists. I wish to say to the right hon. the leader of the Government, because he and the Government are responsible for the view they take of this subject, that they cannot reasonably take shelter behind the old conditions. As I have pointed out, the duties of the officials under the old system were simply of a mechanical character so to speak but now a change has taken place by Vhich the party in power have taken the list under their own control and they are selecting the jury, empannelling them and taking away the right even of objecting to any of the persons called to serve upon that jury. They are appointing their own officials and taking the whole machinery into their own hands. I wish to remind the leader of the Government that there are a great many charges against this Government, some of them right and some of them wrong.


Jacques Bureau: Very few wrong.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the Government generally have reason to believe that they will have a pretty hard proposition when they go to the country lor re-election. Therefore I would advise them not to further weaken the reputation of the Conservative party, or the Union party, as the case may be, by trying to once more create a machine to insure their return to power. In the early stages of this discussion we had a statement from the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie), I think it was, which is very significant. He said: "If we try once more to get ourselves back to power we will certainly do so and so in connection with this legislation." That would imply, it seems to me, that once before they created machinery to get them back to power. The question now arises: Will they try it once more? I would advise my hon. friend and the Government that it will be the part of wisdom for them not to place this further blot on the reputation of the party by making the attempt, which in my judgment will be absolutely futile and will add to the difficulties oi those who may come after them as their lineal descendants.
I am in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I think it gives sufficient scope for the Government to exercise their judgment in getting proper men as returning officers, and it at least gives them an opportunity to select men of the very highest integrity from among the officials enumerated. The people of this country realize that a man holding the position of customs officer, postmaster, sheriff, or municipal secretary-treasurer is of some standing in the community, and I venture to say that -no reflection at all will he cast upon the Government if they select men of that stamp as returning officers. I am surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite are objecting to the adoption of the wise plan suggested by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, and I hope that on maturer consideration the leader of the Government will advise acceptance of the amendment.


Mr. GOULD:: I have only two or three words to add to this discussion. It seems to me that a little story I have heard -in the West is quite appropriate at this time. A man was asked if he was well-acquainted with three prevaricators in the locality and he replied: "Yes. Dick Smith is one; Tom Jones is the other two." Now, it strikes me that in connection with this amendment hon. gentlemen have so often repeated and

re-hashed their argument that they have actually come to believe it themselves. The amendment is based on wrong premises. It presumably ennunciates the opinion that ability, integrity and every other good quality are centered in the class of officials referred to. Now, that is not so. I can cite instances where many officials of the class mentioned have been deposed because of crookedness. I can give a longer list than any that has been given in the House today of wrong-doings by returning officers. Although I have perhaps but a very limited political experience in the West, I -can cite instances and produce proof of many wrong acts by such men. One instance I might mention: Mr. Turgeon, a minister in the Saskatchewan Government, who is the son of the hon. member, for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) has several times had occasion to depose individuals of the class mentioned in this list. Speaking of customs officers, for instance, that is one class of individual in this country that I oppose more than any other, because I cannot see on what premises it can be argued that they are absolutely honest and trustworthy. If I had my records here I could cite cases where men of this class have wilfully imposed on people in a way that the law certainly does not sanction, and I cannot see why this amendment should recommend that class of officials for appointment as returning officers. A few moments ago an hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House said that a lot of men in the post offices in the West would not have his recommendation as men of honesty and integrity. Those men are not appointed because they alone possess those qualities, and to assume that they are the only people fit to act as returning officers is, inferentially, a condemnation of others who do not hold such appointments. I argue that the Government be consistent in the attitude they have taken in respect to this Bill, especially if they take into consideration the record of past elections. I intend to support the clause as presented by the Government as I feel that it is the only and right and proper thing to do.


Pius Michaud: I notice that section 22 empowers the Governor in -Council to appoint returning officers. I would like to ask the hon. Acting Solicitor General if the Governor in Council is a political body; if so, I think the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is quite right and should be accepted by the Government. We want politics taken out of this Bill, and we

had a promise from the hon. minister that that would be done. I am sure that he is not ready to state that many members of the Cabinet are not partisans. Therefore it is high time we should look narrowly into this section and see if its defects will not be remedied by the adoption of this amendment.
In regard to the class of officials enumerated in the amendment, I 'beg to state, in reply to some of my hon. friends on the other side of the House, that returned soldiers are at the present time occupying .many such positions, namely, as collectors of customs, postmasters, and -so on; consequently, there is no danger that our friends, the returned soldiers, will not have an opportunity to act as returning officers. As far as postmasters are concerned, I venture to say that in my own constituency at least one-half of them are farmers; therefore that particular- class will be represented. With regard to clerks of the peace and municipal secretary-treasurers, I have had some opportunities of studying the appointments to these positions in my own province, and I find that as a rule such appointments are made for a certain time, and on failure to discharge their duties faithfully and honestly the appointees are liable to dismissal at any moment. All men occupying such positions in my own province are looked upon as good reliable men, and therefore I feel assured that the proper conduct of elections will be safeguarded if returning officers are appointed from among these officials.
As a rule the sheriffs all through the eastern part of Canada have always given satisfactory service. I know of only one case in New Brunswick where a sheriff failed to do his duty, buit the candidate who had the majority of the votes did not suffer, being declared duly elected by the court. I will not go into the details, but there was some mistake with Tegard to the posting of the proclamation and as to the date for the receiving of the reports of the returning officer. In my opinion the sheriff is in a position to give ample satisfaction as returning officer. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I wish to join with
hon. members on this side in supporting the amendment presented by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). T think that hon. members on both sides agree in their desire to have a fair franchise law and to create machinery for the holding of honest elections in the future-for at last election
things were not done as some people thought they should be. We want to prevent that at the next election, and this amendment will tend to prevent wrongdoing. It proposes that returning officers shall be selected from certain officials in the towns, cities and municipalities who may be regarded as the best men to give satisfactory service, and against whom no reflection can be made. In the last election a prominent notary in my constituency was suggested as returning officer. Unfortunately, there was another man in the county, a bailiff, of the same name-Cimon, and he was selected to be the returning officer. So that instead of having a man who was centrally located and had a permanent office or place of business, we had this bailiff, who was travelling about the constituency serving summonses and orders and rules of the court. Two days before polling day I was informed that some boxes had not been provided for certain polling stations. We tried to communicate with the returning officer, but we could not fine him; whereas if he had a place of residence or place of business which was well known >-and that idea is incorporated in my hon. friend's amendment-there would have been no difficulty in finding him and in having this matter attended to. The officials enumerated in the amendment would be men of long experience in public life, in political affairs, in certain professions and callings; they would all have the experience required of persons who should fulfil the duties of returning officer. Further, they have the confidence of all the people; otherwise they would not occupy these positions. These conditions would not apply to bailiffs, insurance agents, or any Tom, Dick or Harry whom the Government might appoint upon the recommendation of their candidates. I do not see what harm there would be in incorporating in this clause the amendment of my hon. friend; it is merely an assurance that the recurrence of irregularities will be prevented. For these reasons, I shall vote for the amendment,,


Jacques Bureau: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, before the question is put, I would like to say a few words to the committee on the amendment of the hen. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). We know that the country has just been through a most trying period. There is evidence that distrust, even hate, is rampant in our land. Even in this House accusations have been hurled at the Admin-

istration concerning the elections held in 1917. The right honourable, the Acting Prime Minister told us, a few days ago, that we should have done with these bitter quarrelings in Parliament; it was high time, he said, that we began to trust one another. Well, Mr. iSpeaker, if the Government, in their heart and soul, really do wish to bring about this spirit of harmony, they could ask for no better opportunity of proving it than the one afforded by the present discussion of the Franchise Act which we are about to bestow upon the country.
I am well aware that this legislation applies to the country as a whole, and my Western friends, of the National Progressive party, are telling me nothing new when they say that this Act is as much concerned with the West as with the East. This is not a question of patronage. The hon. Minister of Milita (Mr. Guthrie) contends that we should keep up that' system, because it has shown itself to he workable. But he is oblivious of the fact that conditions are not the same and that he cannot invoke as a precedent that happened prior to 1917, nor what has happened since that date. I may lay claim to the honour of representing a constituency in this House since 1900; I have had the pleasant, or unpleasant experience, of going through six elections-I should say the pleasant experience, since I won them all-following hard-fought contests. On each occasion the returning officer appointed by the Government was either the county registrar or the prothonotary of the Superior *Court, with the sole exception of 1917. However, it was pointed out by one of the hon. members who preceded me, we must not lose sight of the fact that, prior to 1917, the voters' list was drawn up by the officers of the municipality and revised by a tribunal appointed, in some cases-, by the Provincial Government and, I believe, by the municipality itself, in the cities of Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers, Hull and Sherbrooke, Once the list was completed and revised those whose names did not appear were not entitled to vote. Nobody could come along and say; such and such a name must be put on the list; such and such a name must be scratched off. Moreover, as I said a moment ago, these officers, for the most part, were chosen amongst those named in the amendment moved -by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's; and the reason for this was 
explained by one of the hon. members who preceded me.
. The task before us is not only to stamp out the patronage evil but to re-establish public confidence in the efficiency of parliamentary government and prove to the people of this country that Parliament has not forsaken dignity, that governments still have some respect for the representatives of the people who come to sit in this House. We must prove our good faith and we could find no better way of doing so than by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. Why so? Because in every county the registrar, the sheriff, the town clerk or any of the other officers mentioned, are men whom the people trust, men who must furnish a bond to the corporation or the legislature, whichever authority appoints them, as a guarantee of faithful adherence to duty. But, says the hon. Minister of Militia, they are not under bond to this Government. Whoever has the slightest acquaintance with the subject, whoever wants to use his judgment, will readily understand that a public servant who is under a bond to fulfil his duty towards one and all has no inducement to act in such a way as to destroy the confidence of those who believe in him. Therefore public opinion, if not the opinion of this Government and this House, holds that such a man will prove more faithful in the accomplishment of his duty than the man who is appointed for the time being only and who is under no necessity to retain the confidence of the public; who, once the election over, disappears from the scene and retires to private life, gnd who entertains the hope that whatever he may do to improve his own situation during the short time that the elections do last, is fraught with no consequences to himself, other than political, and that he will never be called upon by his fellow-citizens to give an account of his conduct.
After all, we must take things as we find them. Why, during a debate in this House last year we were met with smiles when we stated that the election had not been held in an honest, fair and impartial way; we were even told: What we did was a very creditable thing, since we did it to gain our end and the end justifies the means. We decidedly cannot expect the public to have much confidence in a parliament which proclaims the doctrine that the end justifies the means. And when we endeavoured to show by specific instances how unfairly and unjustly election work

had been carried on; when we requested the Government and the House to appoint a board of enquiry so that they might reveal, in all their hideousness, these specific instances of agrant dishonesty on the part of the Government, had the door brutally slammed in their faces. I say brutally because the Government practically admitted the accusations, but their answer was: We snap our fingers in your faces. We had an end to gain; we have gained that end-, so we snap our fingers at you and at those you represent.
We ask, in the public interest; I go even further: we ask you, for the sake of patriotism, to appoint as returning officers the officials mentioned in the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Shelburne and (Queen's, men who enjoy the confidence of a considerable portion of our population; if they are not willing to serve; if, in any riding, none of those mentioned in the list are available, then a,ppoint somebody eke.
The argument of any friends from the West when they say: We have none of these officers in the West, is entirely irrelevant. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) even took occasion to state that certain public officials did not enjoy his confidence.
I might say that in English. I am stating that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) just now stated that certain officers appointed by this Government as customs officers were not proper men to be appointed, and at the same time to support his argument, he said-


Oliver Robert Gould: I think the hon. member is misinterpreting the statement I made. I made no reference whatever to any officers that this Government had appointed.


Jacques Bureau: I understood my hon. friend to say that certain customs officers were not acceptable to him, nor to the community. Is that right?


Oliver Robert Gould: The inference I tried to draw was that no customs officer is satisfactory to me as a returning officer.


Jacques Bureau: Or satisfactory to me.
Therefore, my hon. friend wants to support his argument that the Government can appoint as returning officers persons sat.io. factory to him, by saying that in appointments that have been previously made they have not appointed men who were satisfactory to him.
Now, I shall go on with my argument. I say that one of the most important tasks which confronts us to-day in this country
is that of building anew the confidence of the people in parliamentary government and J maintain that the appointment of the officials mentioned in the amendment of my hon. friend (iMr. Fielding) will go along way, in the older provinces, towards restoring that confidence.
The hon. members from the West tell us the Act is for the whole country. Exactly: the Act k concerned with Canada as a whole and not with the West exclusively. If the West be dissatisfied the latter part of this section offers the means for redress.
I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who is better acquainted than any one eke with the respectability of our sheriffs, our registrars, and our prothonotaries-incidentally, I would request that the word "prothonot-ary" be added to the motion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, if there be no objection. I say that, in the past, up to 1917, as the hon. Minister of Justice is well aware, these officials acted as returning officers and were found satisfactory.
The argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia is this-I use hie own words -iWe have tried out this system and we know its worth.
Yes, we have tried this system, but under different conditions: we put it to the test, as I said before, when the people still had faith in parliamentary government, when they still believed in the men who were at the head of affairs in this country. The system was abandoned in 1917. In 1917, we set up the system that we want to impose on certain provinces that never used it before.
As pointed out by one of the hon. members who spoke before me, the voters' lists, in the different provinces, were drawn up by the municipalities, their revision was left to revisers appointed jointly by the municipalities and the Provincial Governments and once revised, they were accepted as final. Thereafter no one whose name did not appear on the list was entitled to cast a ballot, no matter what he did; even if he swore on oath that he was a duly qualified voter, it availed him nothing. When an election took place the returning officer appointed was a public official; his hearth and his family were in that very locality; he was known to every one; he had the honour of his family td safeguard; he was entrusted with a mission which did not end with the execution of the writ of election.

Therein lies the danger of appointing a man who is not a public official: once the election is over his responsibility ceases- I am not insinuating, mark you, that there are no honest men to be found outside those mentioned in the amendment submitted by my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's.
Spokesmen for the other side have tried to throw dust in our eyes; the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) tried to worry us by asking: "Would you accept a workingman?'' Of course we would accept a workingman. You will find workingmen amongst the postmaster and amongst the town clerks. 1 admit, however, that there are no labouring men to be found occupying positions which require legal qualifications. We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that these men are quasi judicial officers. The moment a returning officer is appointed there is no appealing from his decision until after the election and then we can only have recourse against the individual who benefited or suffered through the returning officer's actions. These can be corrected solely by judgment rendered in court. Hence I maintain that since the returning officer is a' quasi judicial officer the greatest care must be exercised in selecting these men. What objection can the Minister of Militia have to appointing a registrar, where possible, in those provinces which are accustomed to that way of doing things. If he did that he would help to bring back public confidence and to persuade the people that parliamentary government is not farce, as a great many are inclined to believe nowadays, because we representatives of the people have been ignored right along.
Certain hon. gentlemen on the other side have sought to show that we wished to restrict the appointment of returning officers to the officials mentioned in the amendment submitted by the hony member for Shelburne and Queen's. That is absolutely false. If the man does not care to accept the appointment, if none of these officials be available; should you not have at hand any town clerk, nor any man whom you think qualified, then let the Governor General in Council appoint a man. But what we want, and it is only fair-I have so far heard nothing against the fairness of this proposal-is that where we have been accustomed to these officials, where they have already served as returning officers, and are there, ready to act in that capacity again; we ask the Government, I repeat, not to overlook these public servants when the time comes for appointing a returning offi-TMr. Bureau.] .
cer. The public interest demands that the appointments be made in that way.
I had nothing to complain about in 1917 since I was returned by acclamation; however, 1 feel quite sure that the gentleman appointed as returning officer in 1917-an eminently respectable gentleman; I have nothing to say against him-did not enjoy the confidence of the community to as great a decree as did the prothonotary of the Superior Court of the Three Rivers district who was chosen for the post in 1911.
The Government seems to look upon the appointment of a returning officer as if it were mere routine; as though the conduct of a returning officer were not of much account. This is a serious mistake.
I submit that we have established our case. We ask the House to accept the the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, in the public interest; we ask it for the sake of public confidence in the efficiency of parliamentary government, which we must restore.
The hon. Minister of Militia says he has not yet heard a single argument in favour of the amendment. If the public interest, if the restoring of public confidence in representative government are not sound arguments, then I must bow to the minister. At the same time if the public interest is not given precedence over all else, then I am forced to conclude that there are, behind this Bill, certain motives that will bear watching.
On the other hand I maintain that the Minister of Militia should give me a reason for refusing to accept this amendment. He says: We have tried the old law and found it satisfactory. I make this distinction, and I want to be clearly understood, that prior to 1917 conditions were not the same; the people did not think as they think today; they did not consider Parliament and the Government in the same light as they consider them to-day; there was none of the agitation which is>
everywhere prevalent to-day; there was none of the spirit of discontent which we have to-day. This discontent is levelled at Parliament and its institutions, and this is a natural consequence of the actions of a Government which has sought to administer the affairs of State by Order in Council, without consulting the representative of the people.
Under the circumstances I say that the burden of proof should not be on us, should not be on the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's; it is the Minister of Militia who should show cause for refusing to accept this amendment when we have made

it clear to him that in the name of public interest, in the name of patriotism the amendment should be accepted.
The Government on bringing down the Bill told us that the measure was intended to give fair treatment to all.
Sir, we do not deny the right of the Governor in Council, when he sees fit, to appoint as returning officer some one other than a post-master, a customs official, a pro-thonotary or a registrar; what we say is this: When you "can, and when public sentiment demands it, why mot, chose your returning officers from among these officials who are available for the work and well prepared for it? I repeat that the duties of a returning officer are of a high order of importance; and it is not any Tom, Dick or Harry who can measure up to them.
For these reasons, and in the public interest, as I have already said, I shall support to the utmost the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.


Mr. GLASS:: One would scarcely expect, at this stage of the debate, to contribute any new thought to the arguments that have already been presented in reference to the clause under discussion. I am not able to convince myself that the Opposition really think they have submitted any strong arguments in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member (Mr. Fielding). The arguments that have been made remind me of the small country storekeeper who when his rival across the street was drawing the bulk of the trade to his store put in his window the sign " Do not go across there to be buncoed. Come in here." My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) earnestly appeals to this Government to refrain from creating any machinery which may result in returning them to power, and I can imagine him saying, sotto voce, " Swing it over to this side."
I have not yet heard any answer to the arguments made yesterday by my hon. friend (Mr. Best) to the effect that the amendment discriminated against certain classes of the community who are entitled to consideration. I represent a rural constituency and I have been interested in elections for many years, and I know that in my district the practice has invariably been to' choose a reliable farmer as returning officer, and they have given unqualified satisfaction. In an experience of thirty years I cannot recall a single act done by any returning officer that has been brought into question in the slightest degree. I am 102
opposed to this amendment because it would prevent consideration being given to the farmers and also to labour, who are entitled to consideration. I cannot believe that we should get better officials by confining ourselves to the classes mentioned in the amendment, or that we will be any more likely to get away from partisanship.
I shall support the clause as submitted by the minister because I believe it is fair, and it allows of a wider selection in the appointment of officials. I believe that this election law can be administered without any dishonesty on the part of the men selected by the Government.


Mr. MOLLOY:: I object to clause 22 because it is partisan. The candidate supporting the Government has the naming of the returning officer; the returning officer has the naming of his deputies, and of the registrars and poll clerks. From the very beginning the thing is unfair. I know it to be unfair because I have had experience on two occasions myself. Under the party system I had the naming of the returning officer. What did I do? I tried to pick a man at least as partisan as myself, and I succeeded. Now that is an unfair advantage, there is no question about it. This officer has power to influence not only his officials but very many voters. He decides where the polling station shall be located and whose house shall be rented. It is patronage of the most vicious kind, and I must plead guilty of this offence twice. We were told when the Union Government was appealing to the country that patronage would be abolished, that a new political era had arrived, that everything would be good from now on. Now is the time for hon. gentlemen opposite to make good their word. The sins they have to answer for are many, but they might as well leave power with the credit of having been fair once. They can be fair by accepting the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). There is no question that they are going to leave power, because throughout the length and breadth of the land the electors have learnt to hate them, to detest and despise and desert them. A certain number of the Government's followers deserted them last night because they knew that the day of reckoning was near at hand when they would have to appeal to the men who voted for them the last time. And I can tell some hon. gentlemen this also, that there are in this House many men whom we and the country know to be "compromise" candidates. They are com-



promised candidates for the reason that when the Union party was formed, if a constituency was allotted to a Conservative candidate, the Union Liberals would not accept a Conservative whom they considered to be a strong man. They demanded that a weak man should be chosen because they contended that the Union Government was only a temporary expedient, and they did not desire to place in power any man whom they would find it difficult to defeat when the union was dissolved and party politics were resumed. I therefore say that there are hon. gentlemen who were compromise candidates, and although they may vote for this measure it. will not help them in any way, for they will not be elected again. They will not be elected for the simple reason that the majority of them will not be nominated again. I say to this Government that they ought, as honourable men, to be fair in the appointing of returning officers. But even if it were in the power of this Government to make every man in Canada a returning officer the Government would be defeated just the same. Ilf this Bill goes through I shall of course be bound to accept it and I shall do the best I can to have it observed. But it is most unfair, and this Government, which we were told was formed for the sole purpose of saving the British Empire, Canada and humanity, ought to realize the necessity for justice and fair play in this matter. They have nothing to lose but everything to gain by being perfectly honest and fair. I recall, in considering the unfairness of this Act, a story which was told of General Sam Steele many years ago in Western Canada. We believe that no braver man than General Steele ever lived, and on one occasion, when he was in very close quarters and pitted against great odds, he made an address in which he said that it did not make so much difference how long a man lived, in view of the immortality of the soul and the eternity of time, but that it did make a great difference what name he left behind him. This Government, rightly or wrongly, is charged by the people with having been derelict and unfair in the administration of the affairs of the country, and that they will be defeated there is no possible question. In view of this probability-nay, this certainty-does it not behoove them to leave behind them a name which will at all events partly redeem their errors? That they will not be re-elected they know perfectly well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick Molloy: Every one says so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick Molloy: The people generally, including gentlemen opposite themselves, know this to be true. Now, as regards the different offices that have been named, I am prepared to say that if I am a candidate again in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I am willing, and indeed I would prefer, to accept such men as municipal clerks or Secretary-treasurers in any municipality in Provencher, and some are Conservative and some are Liberal. I am quite satisfied to have any one of these men nominated, and if I had the naming of them I would select them whether they were Liberal or Conservative. There are no more Unionists there, so that any man appointed would have to be a Conservative or a Liberal.


Hugh Guthrie: What about a farmer?


John Patrick Molloy: Yes. Hon. gentlemen are pleading for the farmers, and it has been said that the farmers will not get in on this. The hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) last night was worried about the farmers, but let me say to that hon. gentleman and others on the opposite side that they would do well to look out for the farmers, for there is no doubt whatever that the farmers, to use the common expression, will fix them all right. In the county of Dufferin, where, in the old days, a Liberal candidate was lucky to save his deposit, and where the present member (Mr. Best) was elected in 1917 by 2,500 or mdre, in the last provincial election, a U.F.O. candidate carried the seat by a majority of about 600. I am not worrying about the farmers, and II am quite ready to take my chance with the farmer and the Unionist, and I shall be glad to meet on common ground with any Tory.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Mr. Chairman, I move that we call it six o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No. Go on.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Well, I have no objection
to continuing this very pleasant debate. I was rather aipused during the course of remarks to which I have listened from hon. members opposite to hear their pleas on behalf of the farmer, the labouring man, and the returned soldier. I quite agree that the farmer, the labourer, and the returned

soldier should be given some opportunity of exercising their peculiar qualifications in the position of returning officer. But to my mind the offipe of returning officer, and some other positions mentioned, should not be held hy men who do not possess a certain legal knowledge. These men need not necessarily be barristers or solicitors, but in a large number of cases their functions are necessarily judicial, or at least, as my hon. friend - from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) suggests, quasi-judicial, and in some instances they exercise functions that are almost purely legal. Without having had a certain legal training he would have innumerable difficulties in administering the duties of his position fairly and equitably. In reference to the returned soldier, from my knowledge of that gentleman, it is hardly likely that he will be appointed as a returning officer because, knowing the extreme partiality which has been manifested by the Government to the returned soldier in giving him a position so that he may be able to earn sufficient money to re-establish himself, I am quite sure that he will not be satisfied with an appointment that will give him $2 or $3 a day for five or six days. A returned soldier who will be satisfied with such a position, or who will not be sufficiently reestablished that he will want that position, will not be the class of man we want as a returning officer. I will go further for the benefit of those who wish to have the returned soldier. It seems to me that this law has already been sufficiently surrounded by militarism without introducing the returned soldier into the question. We had in the past' the Minister of Militia and they had a legal adviser to the Militia Department. We have been fighting for years against militarism, I understand that the adviser is the legal adviser to the Militia Department and I understand that he has had considerable experience in reference to military votes. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) who sits behind him, and doubtless whispers words of wisdom into his ear, is also a soldier and perhaps will know how to manage the military vote. I protest, as one who has invariably protested, against militarizing the Franchise Act. I had experience of it in 1917 and I sincerely hope with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) that this Government, bad as it is, will when it departs this life, have obtained and ah tained that position that those who will came after will be able to , say de mortuis nil nisi bonum.
Progress reported.
102i


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I understand
that the Government desires to. go into Supply this evening and to take up the Estimates. If they are Estimates that the House has already been dealing with I understand we go automatically into Supply. If they are Estimates that we have not yet discussed there will be some exception taken on this side to taking up a department other than one which has already been under consideration.


George Green Foster: I am sorry it my hon. friends propose to take exception to going into the Estimates which we notified the House of last night, and in ' regard to which an arrangement has been made. If hon. gentlemen on the other side wish to debate, if they have to debate at one time or another, and if they want to keep the talk going, they might as well do it on that as on any other question.


Jacques Bureau: There are certain rules oi the House that were made for a certain purpose and that were made 'by my hon. friends opposite. I think there is a rule of this House, 17C, which stays that if Estimates have not been considered at a previous sitting they cannot be taken up when the Speaker leaves the Chair on Thursday and Friday to go into Supply. The rule is very positive on that point.


George Green Foster: I do not think the rule goes that far.


Jacques Bureau: We will discuss it tonight.


Georges Henri Boivin: One of the rules of the House, I would point out to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), requires that there should be something before the Chair. There is nothing before the Chair at the present time. The matter can be taken up when the House meets at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 6, respecting The Canadian Mining Institute, and to change its name to "The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy."-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 70 (from the Senate), for the relief of Herbert Walter Ecclestone-Mr. Pedlow.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 71, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 72, to incorporate The NorthWest Route, Limited.-Mr. Boys.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Ocean and River Service-maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and icebreakers, $1,500,000.
['I purpose to substitute a new section for subsection (4) of section 5A as follows:\n" (4) (a) The provisions of section five and of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section shall not apply to the possession, sale, or distribution by a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store of preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin, or more than one grain of codeine, or any salt or derivative of any of them in one fluid ounce, or, if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ouncfe; or to liniments, ointments, or other preparations which are prepared for external skin use only, which do not contain cocaine or any of its salts or preparations, but every such remedy or preparation as mentioned in this section, must contain active medicinal drugs other than narcotic in sufficient proportion to confer upon the preparation or remedy valuable medicinal qualities, other than those possessd by the narcotic drugs alone;\n\nprovided, however, that it shall be an offence against this Act to sell, or offer for sale, any remedy or preparation intended for internal use, which contains opium, morphine, heroin or codeine, unless there be printed in a conspicuous place on .an inseparable part of the main panel of the label and wrapper of the bottle, box, or other container, and in letters of the same size and visability as the word that dominates the label, in (the article) the following words:-\nIt is unlawful to administer this preparation to a child under two years of age as it contains (insert name of drug) and Is dangerous to its life.\nProvided, further, that the Governor in Council may, by regulation to be published in the Canada Gazette, extend and apply the provisions of the said paragraphs (e) and (f) to any preparation named or described in such regulation.\n(b)\tIt shall be an offence against this Act for any person to sell for administration to a child under two years of age, or to administer to any such child any remedy or preparation containing opium, morphine, heroin or codeine the sale of which is permitted by this subsection.\n(c)\tNothing in this Act shall contravene or affect any provisions of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act or any amendments thereto.\nJust a word in explanation of that amendment. The International Opium Convention does not apply to the sale of preparations containing a limited quantity of these drugs. The quantities mentioned in this subsection are smaller than those mentioned in the Treaty, but are the same as those mentioned in the Harrison Act-the American Act passed some two or three years ago to deal with this same subject matter.\nI move the adjournment of the debate.\nMotion agreed to: debate adjourned.\nOn motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.\nMonday, April 26, 1920.']
Jacques Bureau: May I ask the hon. minister to make a statement to the House in respect to the icebreakers? This year we have had the "Lady Grey" on the St. Lawrence route, but although the winter was very severe I understand the "Montcalm" was engaged elsewhere. Is it the intention of the Government to improve the service of icebreakers on the St. Lawrence route between Quebec and Montreal so as to keep the channel clear and prevent floods in the spring?


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: In addition to the icebreakers that the Government have had in service for some years on the St. Lawrence, we purpose placing another icebreaker in commission, for which an item will be found a little further on in my Estimates for new icebreakers to cost approximately $2,000,000, and I hope the committee will approve of that item. iSo far as this particular vote is concerned, I may say that it is similar to that of last year's, being required to cover the operating and maintenance expense of twenty-four Government ships employed maintaining the light buoys and fog alarms in order and attending to construction work on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the lakes and rivers.


Jacques Bureau: The "Montcalm" and
"(Lady 'Grey" are included in those twenty-four ships?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Mr. OOPP:: Does the maintenance include the wages of the seamen?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, the whole expense.


Albert James Smith Copp: How much was expended on this item last year?
Mr. BALLAiNTYNE:	To March 1, 1920,

_ Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:	Does this item
include the tugs and boats used by the Marine Department around the harbours?
Mr. BALLANTYNE,:	It includes everything that is operated by the Marine Department, with the exception of the small 
tugs that are used in connection with dredging the St. Lawrence ship channel.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:: In regard to the
salaries of the engineers on the small tugs on the eastern coast-and, I refer especially to the "IBrant"-I understand that representations have been made to the department that their scale of pay is not in accordance with the scale of the National Association of Marine Engineers. Has the department under consideration adjusting those wages; and, if so, what change does the hon. minister purpose making in the way of an advance?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
John Ewen Sinclair: Under the proposed increase will the engineers be entitled to the bonus that is being paid to civil servants?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My department has to pay the prevailing rate of wages, and therefore it is not deemed advisable to give these men any bonus. Besides, they are in an entirely different position from the men employed in other branches of the Civil Service.


John Ewen Sinclair: In making the
proposed increase does the minister intend to accept the scale of pay adopted for Eastern Canada by the Association of Marine Engineers?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: For the moment I have not before me the schedule of wages my hon. friend refers to. I cannot make any definite promise in that regard beyond what I said a moment ago. I will be very glad to do whatever is fair and right, but I am not prepared to say that we will give exactly the same wages down on the Atlantic coast as out on the Pacific coast. For the moment 1 do not know the difference that my hon. friend refers to.


John Ewen Sinclair: In what way do you distinguish between the Atlantic and the Pacific?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is no uniform scale of wages; it depends a good deal upon the ship and the service that she is

engaged in. The cost of living is higher on the Pacific coast than it is on the Atlantic.


John Ewen Sinclair: The scale of
wages that has been adopted by the marine engineers for Eastern Canada is the same as the scale applying to those engaged in similar employment in private enterprise. Under the Association of Marine Engineers, chief engineers in private employment and working on such a steamer as I have mentioned dre entitled to a wage of $125 a month, and second engineers to $100 a month. When they are laid off during the winter months a bonus of twenty per cent over these wages is allowed. I think that the department has been a little close with the officers on the boat that I have mentioned in not giving them an increase when they are laid off during the winter months, as they have been for the past two years. Have these circumstances been brought to the minister's attention, and if so does he intend to place his engineers on the same level as those engaged in private employment as respects the granting of an increase when they are laid off during winter months?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The wages of the
engineers range from $80 to $175 a month. The larger the ship, the more the engineer is paid. The salaries of the chief engineers are as follows: "Aberdeen, $120 a month; "Aranmore," $130; "Argenteuil," $85; "Bellechasse," $115; "Brant"-the boat my hon. friend is referring to-$100; "Champlain," $100. And so on. They go down as low as $80.	.


John Ewen Sinclair: According to the horse-power?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. I't has been the custom of my department to allow the men to receive their wages during the winter months.


John Ewen Sinclair: I understand that in making the increase that the minister has not decided to adopt the scale of pay set forth toy the Association of Marine Engineers, and that he is going to discontinue the bonus. That may make the condition worse than it is. I ask the minister to take into consideration the cost of living and the general conditions applicable to the service of these men. When the steamer "Brant" lays off for the winter, what does it cost to keep her at the dock? How much is paid out for repairs while the ship is laid off during the winter that might be made
by these officers if they were kept at their posts?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have under consideration the matter of increases in salaries of all officers and men on the Government ships. When that increase is finally determined upon, the wage will equal that which was paid last year plus the bonus, so that the men will be just as well off in the present fiscal year as they were last year. When the department pays the same wage as the men would get anywhere else on similar ships, I think that they are being very well treated. We keep the ships in service as long as the weather permits and their services are required.


Mr. ROBB:: Is the minister in a position to make a statement regarding the icebreaker that was sent to Russia?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot give any more information than I gave last year. The icebreaker "J. D. Hazen," which cost approximately $1,000,000, was sold to the Russian Government. Officers of my department have made every effort during the last two months to get trace of her, but have been unable to do so. Later on in my Estimates I am going to ask the committee to vote $2,000,000 for a similar icebreaker.


Pius Michaud: I hope it will not be for Russia.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


Albert James Smith Copp: It seems to me that it is unnecessary and unfair to pay a scale of wages on the Atlantic coast different from that which is paid on the Pacific coast. This old idea that it cost more to live in one part of Canada than it does in another is more or less a myth. The Government have gone into the operation of steamships, and it is about time the department realized that the eastern part of the Dominion is quite as important as, if not more important than, the western part. The services of a captain or engineer or any of the officers and men who are manning the boats on the Pacific coast are worth no more than the services of men doing similar work in boats on the Atlantic coast. The time has suTely arrived when there should be a uniform scale of wages on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am much in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member. But it is a well recognized fact that, generally speaking, wages are much higher on the Pacific coast than they are in Eastern Canada, and we are forced to pay a

higher scale of wages out there. I will make every possible effort to bring the scale of wages of those employed on Government steamers in Eastern Canada, if not up to what is paid on the Pacific coast, at least as close as it is possible.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like my hon. friend to go further than that. There is no good reason why the wages should not be on a uniform basis. The work is just as hazardous in one place as in the oilier; if anything, it is more hazardous on the Atlantic coast. The work on the Atlantic is just as important and the men are just as well qualified for the positions as are the men who work in the West. I urge very strongly that the minister say here and now that those men who are doing splendid service on the Atlantic coast shall receive the same wages as those who are doing similar work on the Pacific.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In these days of
rigid economy when I have been held down so closely, and rightly so, by my colleague the Minister of Finance, I do not want to make any rash promises or any promises that I would not be able to fulfil. I will do the very best I can with the appropriation at my disposal, but beyond that, I cannot make any definite statement.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very glad to assist my hon. friend in the matter of economy. * If he cannot bring the wages of those operating on the Atlantic coast up to the scale of wages of those operating on the Pacific coast, he could, as a matter of economy, bring down the wages of those operating on the Pacific coast to the scale of wages of those operating on the Atlantic coast.
I wish to impress upon the minister as strongly as I possibly can the necessity of paying. uniform wages; and if my hon. friend wants to preach economy, I would suggest that if the men on the Atlantic coast are sufficiently paid with the wages they are now getting, he should bring down the wages of those operating on the Pacific coast to the same level. Then, he would have a uniform wage and would be saving money to the country at the same time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How many icebreakers have we in Canada? What are their names, tonnage and ages? The minister might, perhaps, give us some idea where they are placed and what icebreaking work they do.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government
have three icebreakers, the Lady Grey, the Montcalm, and the Stanley. The Montcalm, with the exception of the past win-
ter, was engaged with the Lady Grey in keeping the ice broken at Cap Rouge, so as to avoid, as far as humanly possible, the possibility of floods in the spring. These icebreakers also, as soon as they can, keep working up the channel between Quebec and Montreal. The Lady Grey at the present time has been able to reach Montreal after some six weeks breaking ice from Quebec upwards. The Montcalm, owing to the wreck of the Aranmore, had to go down to the relief of the lighthouse keepers. She tried to reach the Magdalen islands and eventually did so after having been hemmed in the ice for a month. The other icebreaker, the Stanley, breaks ice on the Atlantic coast.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is, I suppose, a very nice idea to keep the icebreaker at Cap Rouge where the minister has reason to dread these floods, but I am not so clear that it is quite good governmental policy to be breaking ice to avoid floods. There surely ought to be some means whereby the formation of that dangerous ice could be prevented. I notice that, in large rivers in the United States, roof-like structures are put into the rivers to prevent the formation of ice, and the ice runs up on them and breaks. Possibly such structures could not be placed at those points about which the minister speaks; but in the case I have spoken of, the formation of heavy ice or jams is prevented. There are in Canada places where icebreakers would be of great commercial assistance. The minister is, and has reason to be, proud of his plate mill at Sydney, and the country, I think, will be proud of the great development following the construction of that mill and other extensions in the industry in that part of the country. We are sometimes bothered with ice in Sydney harbour, and if the minister could give us the services of those icebreakers during a couple [DOT] of months in the year to keep the ice broken in Sydney harbour, he would be rendering great service to that industry which has done so much good at that place. It must be quite evident to the minister that those plates can be more cheaply carried from Sydney to other parts of the world by water than in any other way, and, therefore, it is of the greatest importance that navigation should be continuous. Icebreaking would be required during only about two months in the year, sometimes not even a month; in a mild winter, the icebreaker would not be required at all. But in a winter like the last, when the frost was

very severe, there were several weeks when steamers could not get in or out oi Sydney harbour.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
is quite right in recommending that an icebreaker be employed when she is required at the port of Sydney. The Stanley has generally been allocated for that purpose, but unfortunately during the past winter she was disabled. The repairs are about completed now, and next winter she will be at Sydney harbour whenever the services of an icebreaker are required there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
will recall that during last winter I had some correspondence with him regarding the condition of the people on the Magdalen islands. Has he taken into account the possibility of a similar situation arising .another winter, and is he making, in his Estimates, any provision to meet a situation of that kind?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I hope that before
the season closes for the present year, a sufficient quantity of provisions will be sent to the Magdalen islands. The reason that they were short of provisions during the past winter was because the steamer that was on that route became disabled, and it was very late in the season when the people living on the Magdalen islands called upon the Government to try to send provisions there. Owing to the lateness of the season, the ship got stuck in the ice and it was necessary to send the icebreaker Montcalm there. I hope nothing will happen to the steamer on this route during the coming season, and that the island will have all the provisions necessary before the extreme weather comes on. If not, my department will send whatever available icebreaker we may have to the assistance of such ships in distress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it possible in any way to get the people of the islands to appreciate the necessity of importing the necessaries of life during the open season? It seems to me that a good deal of the difficulty that arose came from the fact the minister mentioned, namely, that supplies had not been brought in at the right time. Could the Government do anything in the way of notifying some of the merchants on the island as to the necessity of early importations?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is quite right. The importance of the Magdalen Island people stocking up with the necessary
provisions will be brought to their attention by the Acting Prime Minister who is also Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). The matter comes under his department and I shall have pleasure in bringing the matter to his attention. I might say that in former years sudh trouble has not been experienced but the circumstances have been unusual of late, owing to the war and the extreme shortage of tonnage, and the unfortunate accident to the steamer that was on the route.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that the minister intends to ask for an appropriation for the construction of an icebreaker steamer to be used on the River St. Lawrence. At the present time there is a car ferry that plies between the mainland and Prince Edward Island from Cape Tormen-tine to Port Borden. As the minister is aware, that ferry is used for carrying cars and is also often used to help out in different places where emergencies arise. It has been suggested that when the department undertakes the construction of an icebreaker, it might be possible to have it so constructed that it will serve the purposes of a car ferry in the summer season and of an icebreaker in the winter season. I am told that leading marine experts believe that this is quite feasible. As an, expenditure of $2,000,000 is to be made on an icebreaker, if it could be so constructed as to serve also the purposes of a car ferry, it would perhaps postpone the time when a second car ferry would be established between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I think there is a necessity at the present time for a second car ferry, but we realize that these are days when economy is also needed. This two-fold object might be attained if the minister, in arranging for the construction of this icebreaker could have it made to serve tfhe double purpose I have mentioned. If anything should happen to the present ferry the people of the Island would be cut off completely in their trade accommodation. They have become accustomed to using the ferry, and any misfortune to it would be seriously felt. I would ask the minister whether he has considered having the icebreaker made to serve this double purpose, and if he has not, would he find out before undertaking construction if such a plan is feasible?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The department has not yet called for tenders. I was awaiting the approval of this committee before doing

so. I am not enough of a technical man myself to know whether it is feasible to have an icebreaker as large and as powerful as the one we have in contemplation made to serve also the purposes of a car ferry, but the suggestion is well worthy of consideration, and I shall be very glad to talk it over with the shipbuilders. The icebreaker that we have in mind will be so powerful that she will be able to cut her way through ice at any time of the year wherever she may he, and on account of her strength it may not be possible to have her so constructed as to serve this other purpose. If the shipbuilders, however, think it is at all feasible.I shall be glad to do it.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like to emphasise what the leader of the Opposition has said. As the minister knows, the boat that is now in operation as a car ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is the most powerful icebreaker we now have on the Atlantic coast, and it does good work. Those who know ice conditions in the East are of opinion that it is quite feasible to have a boat built to serve both as car ferry and icebreaker. That would give us a boat that would be able both to relieve the car ferry and take care of ice conditions. The minister will remember that during the past season when a boat of the merchant marine got fast in the ice of the St. Lawrence, strong representations were made to the Railway Department to have the car ferry taken off the route. That would have been a calamity to the province of Prince Edward Island, because she was doing good work, and was the only means of communication we had with the mainland. She was continuously employed night and day to keep open communication. At the present time, when we are forced to practise economy to such a rigid extent, I think it would be wise to consider having this icebreaker so constructed that it will serve both purposes, and I trust that the minister will take the matter up with the Railway Department and ascertain whether or not it is feasible.


Jean-Joseph Denis: How many icebreakers were sold to Russia by this Government, and at what price?
Mr. BALLANTYNE.: The previous government sold three Canadian icebreakers to the Russian Government. The "J. D. Hazen,' the powerful one that I referred to a moment ago, costing at that time $1,000,000, and of which we hope to construct a 
duplicate; the "Earl Grey" and "The Minto."


Jean-Joseph Denis: In what y-ear were they sold?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In 1916. I understand the Government of that day got cost price for the icebreakers.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Were they paid for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are anxious to assist the minister in getting his Estimates through, but he will observe that we have Tather a thin House to-night, and I know that one or two members are particularly interested in certain of these items. If we allow these items to pass, but reserve one or two, I presume it can be understood that in subsequent discussions we shall be free to refer to any item that has passed?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Quite so.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In contracting for a new and possibly an improved "J. D. Hazen," the icebreaker the minister has spoken of, does he intend to go back to the somewhat antiquated idea of calling for tenders?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Tenders, cf course, will be called for now that the emergency no longer exists.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I might say for the information of the minister that an emergency does exist in the need for icebreakers for winter navigation of the St. Lawrence-a far greater emergency than existed at the time he gave the contracts for the merchant marine. However, I did not rise to speak of the new icebreaker, but more with reference to repairs to the old icebreakers. May I ask where these repairs were made?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: At the Davie Shipbuilding Company, Quebec.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: All of them?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, so far as I know.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the Government not the proprietor of a drydock at Levis that might very well have been used for repairing these ships? If the Government is the proprietor and manager of this drydock, why don't they send their own ships to it?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The drydock at
Lauzon comes under the Department of Public Works and is leased to the Davie Shipbuilding Company. The Government of course do own the dock but have no ship repairing plant there.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the cost of repairs to icebreakers for the last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have not that information available but I shall try to get
it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister give us the cost of repairs to 'any other government boats? I ask this question because it might be possible for the Government to install a ship-repairing plant in this dry dock [DOT]with a view to economizing a little. I am not sure that very great economy would be effected, but if the bill for repairs is exorbitant it is quite likely that by doing their own repairs the Government could save money. They might nationalize a system of repairs, seeing that they have nationalized other things that should have been left alone. If it can be shown that the Gov-ment could save money by carrying on their own repairs I think they should take this matter into consideration.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The experience of
my department has been quite the opposite. There is only a limited amount of repairs to be done, and it has been found to be in the public interest to give the work out. I do not desire to deviate from the Estimates now under consideration except to say that I now have under consideration the closing up of some naval shops, and the Marine Department's experience at Sorel shows quite clearly that it is in the public interest to have the work done outside, because we have not a sufficient amount of work to keep a repair shop fairly busy throughout the year. The value of repairs for the twenty-four ships we have in commission, and for which this vote is asked, varies year by year, but generally it runs up to about $300,000 a year, and I do not think it would be advisable to establish a ship-repairing plant and install the necessary machinery to do the work when, although we occasionally have considerable work to do, there is generally little work on hand. In managing a ship-repairing plant of this character we would have to keep skilled men on whether or not we had work to keep them busy all the time. It is, therefore, an economy to send out the work.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I placed a question on the Order Paper some days ago with reference to the uniforms worn'by the men on the Lady Grey, which I understand is an icebreaker. The information I received was that the contract for these uniforms was given to a concern known as the Christie Clothing Company of Montreal, after satisfactory prices had been agreed upon with the company. No tender appears to have been called for. The " antiquated method " referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) a few moments ago was certainly not put into force in this instance. Was there an "emergency"? I understand that it is now quite the thing for employees of the Government to wear their old clothes, and perhaps the crew of the Lady Grey might have worn their old clothes for a few days more, in the " emergency," so that tenders might have been called for.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) drew my attention a year ago to the rather faded appearance of the uniforms which the officers and men on government steamers were wearing, and referred particularly to the Lake Champlain and the Lady Grey.
I quite agreed with the hon. member at that time, and accordingjy gave instructions that uniforms should be ordered. Public tenders were called for, but when a few additional uniforms were needed, the purchasing agent placed them with the firm to which he had previously given the contract. I do not want my hon. friend to think that uniforms on a large scale are ordered without tenders being called for.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Apparently they were in
this case, the old ones having offended the artistic eye of the member for Charlevoix-Montmorency. Can the minister say what was the total amount of this contract?
Mr. BALLANTY'NE: I have not that information here.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The amount must have
been fairly large because, for chief officer's uniforms, the price was $35, officers' suits, $32, and so on. The fact that the Christie .Clothing Company might have been able to supply uniforms at more satisfactory rates than other firms on a previous occasion should not justify the purchasing agent in going only to them when more goods are required. It would seem unreasonable, in the light of their experience, that the other firms that were unsuccessful in bidding for uniforms on another boat would have quoted more satisfactory prices had tenders been called for in the case of the Lady Grey. It is not a sufficient justification for this lack of economy to say that because a satisfactory tender had been received once from the Christie Clothing Company we ought to continue obtaining clothing from them alone for another year or as long as the minister thinks fit. Was this contract given through the War Purchasing Commission?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be glad to get the information the hon. gentleman asks for. It is difficult to anticipate all these questions, but the question the hon. member asks is certainly a reasonable one, and when I am on my Estimates again I shall see that the information he asks for is available. I am under the impression that the .quantity was not large, but, as I say, I .shall have more definite information on another occasion. A sufficient quantity of uniforms has been ordered to supply all the officers and men on the Government ships.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some twenty years ago a resolution was passed unanimously in this House with regard to Government clothing contracts, and according to the termjs of that resolution all contracts for clothing for Government officials were to be awarded only after tenders had been called for, and after the Department of .Labour had been given an opportunity of fixing a minimum wage for the workers, and of providing the proper inspection of premises in which the work was to be carried on. It had been found in connection with clothing for the Militia Department that contracts had been awarded to certain parties who sub-let the contracts, which were sublet again, with the result that the work wajs finally carried out in sweat shops, the workers receiving very few cents per hour, and the contractors making a profit of a .hundred, or a hundred and fifty, or two hundred per cent. That condition was brought out in a report which was submitted to Parliament and this resolution was pasjsed unanimously by Parliament at the time. Probably the minister may not have seen the resolution, but it is still an order to the different departments, and I hope that in small things as well as great, in the expenditures for clothing as well as in the millions on these ships, he will watch the resolutions of the House that have been passed for the protection of labour and the promotion of economy.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to draw the minister's attention to a more or less satisfactory answer which was given to a question that I placed on the Order Paper. In answer to a question asked on April 7 it was stated by the minister that "uniforms for the 'Lady Grey' were ordered after satisfactory prices were arranged for a suitable quality of material." I had asked what these satisfactory prices were and where the material was purchased, and the answer was: "From the Christie Clothing Company, Montreal." 
What I want to know is why the minister did not give us the reason for not calling for tenders for uniforms for the officers and crew of the "Lady Grey" other than saying "they were ordered after satisfactory prices were arranged for a suitable quality of material." The fact that certain material was to be obtained at Christie's is surely not a sufficient reason for telling us that they alone should be awarded the contract. Surely other .firms in Montreal or Quebec could have .purchased from whatever quarter of the globe this material comes, and could have obtained an equally satisfactory quality. It is not sufficient for the minister to say, "We bought from that firm because they had the material," and leave us to understand that only the Christie Company could obtain this quality. Are we to understand that the "Lady Grey" required a quality of material that only the Christie Company could supply, whereas the other government boats could be supplied by other firms? Is there anything special about the uniforms for the officers and crew of the "Lady Grey" that they should be made of a particular material?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I would be surprised if there was only one firm that could supply the necessary quality. I confess that from the answer it looks as if that were so, but my deputy has just gone to the telephone to get more particulars than what I have at the moment, and I would ask my hon. friend to allow the question to stand and I will give him the information later on.


Mr. DECHENE:: Is the minister able to tell us how much the Davie Shipbuiding Company is paying for the use of the dry dock?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: As dry docks come under the Department of Public Works, I am sorry I am not able to give the information.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What was paid to the Davie Shipbuilding Company for repairs to government boats last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not in a position to give that information for each steamer; I can only give the lump sum.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I would like to know the lump sum paid to the Davie Company.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Estimates for
general repairs run about $300,000 per year, but just how much was actually paid to the

Davie Shipbuilding Company 9 p.m. for the past fiscal year I will have to find out and let the hon. gentleman know.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Was the icebreaker
"Stanley" repaired by the Davie Shipbuilding Company or at Halifax?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: At Halifax.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Was the "Montcalm" repaired at Halifax or at the Davie dry dock?
I understand that steamer also was very badly damaged last winter.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Stanley" was damaged on the Atlantic coast and it was impossible to get her up to Levis owing to the lateness of the season. We cannot tell what the repairs will be until a survey has been made and a report rendered. Any further repairs that may be required by this steamer will be made by the Davie Shipbuilding Company.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What about the "Montcalm?"


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Montcalm," as a general rule, is repaired by the Davie Shipbuilding Company, but this year she had to go down to the assistance of the lighthouse keepers and later came up to relieve the Government steamer "Spinner." Then she went to the Magdalen Islands and necessarily had to go to Halifax to have repairs made as she was unable to come up to Quebec owing to the ice. As a rule she is not on the Atlantic coast during winter, but is around Quebec.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: What is the name of the firm in charge of repairs at Halifax?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Halifax Shipyards,' Limited.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: How many icebreakers
were in commission and fit for service during the late autumn and winter of 1919 in the St. Lawrence river?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Lady Grey" and the "Montcalm."


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Could the minister tell me why the "Lady Grey" and "Montcalm" were unable to proceed to Belle Isle and were unable to escort the Canadian Government boats which left Quebec late in the season to such an extent that these boats had a very hard time, and in fact one was wrecked owing to the fact that no icebreaker was there to render assistance?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Montcalm"
was not there. The "Lady Grey," owing to being only able to carry a certain amount of coal, to the severity of the weatheT, to the mist caused by the extreme cold, and to the unusual thickness of the ice, was unable to go to the relief of the Government steamer "Spinner." That is one of the reasons why I am going to ask the committee to vote $2,000,000 for a much more powerful icebreaker than the "Lady Grey."


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand the minister
to say that the "Montcalm" was available in the early winter. Where was she?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The "Montcalm"
was around Belle Isle trying to relieve the lighthouse keepers. She was sent down there because the "Aranmore," loaded with lighthouse supplies, was wrecked, and these lighthouse keepers were almost on the verge of starvation. We sent the "Montcalm" down there to relieve them, but she was unable to do so, and the Marine Department thereupon arranged with the Government of Newfoundland to send a relief ship. That accounts for the "Aranmore" being in that district instead of around Quebec.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: At what period of the
year has it been the custom to supply the people at Belle Isle with provisions?
Mr, BALLANTYNE: Any time up to the close of navigation, but the supplies were despatched a little later than usual last vear owing to the department being short of ships, having sold the ships that I mentioned to the Russian Government, and other ships having been wrecked. It was just one of those 'unfortunate accidents that occur occasionally.
M.r. POWER: It seems to me that proper precautions might be taken to deliver supplies in the middle oi summer or at any rate when the department is sure navigation will be open. The officials of the department must know that in the late autumn these storms are apt to occur-they occur nearly every autumn. These deplorable' circumstances might have been avoided had proper precautions been taken in due time to supply the people at Belle Isle and the Magdalen Islands.
iMt. BALLANTYNE:	The "Aranmore"
was ordered in good time to take provisions to the lighthouse keepers, but an emergency call came from a steamer in distress, and we had to send the "Aranmore" to her rescue because quite a number of the crew were adrift in small boats.

The "Aranmore" no sooner performed that service than she got toother call to go to the rescue of a second steamer in distress.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: lls the "Aranmore" a
complete loss?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, there is a very fair possibility of our being able to salvage her.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not know whether my question will be in order on this item, but I would like to get some information regarding the crew of the icebreaker "Montcalm," some of whom I understand, left their ship during the winter. According to the newspapers those men maintain that they were unable to return to their ship owing to the fact that the ice had in the meantime opened up, but I saw a report from the minister or from his department, if I remember rightly, that these men were deserters. I would like to know what is their status?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Their statujs is just exactly as my hon. friend states-deserters. The Montcalm was stuck in the ice in her endeavour to reach the Magdalen Islands, but there was really no danger sufficient to warrant sixteen men deserting her, more particularly when she was on the important service of carrying supplies to people on the verge of starvation. These men deserted tlieir ship and are now open to prosecution if the department desires to take action.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am to understand, then, from the answer of the minister that thase men have not been prosecuted?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They have not been prosecuted.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not very familiar with marine law, but I do not think the minister should accuse these men of being deserters before they have had'an opportunity of defending themselves. I see the Minister of [DOT]Justi'ce (Mr. Doherty) coming in now. We heard him last night expatiating at great length oh the iniquity of condemning people who have not had a chance to defend themselves. Here we have sixteen brave mariners-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Not very brave.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That, 1 am sure the minister will admit, is a. matter of appreciation. We have sixteen mariners, who, if I may believe the stories they have given to the newspapers, left the ship with, at any rate, the consent of their captain to go for a walk fMr. Ballantyne.]
on the ice, but when they endeavoured to return they found that a break in the ice prevented them. So they went to their homes, and apparently they acted in good faith, because they made no secret of it, and had to be helped homeward by some charitable souls. It seems to me that before using such a harsh word the minister ought to have made an investigation and ordered the prosecution of these men. Apparently nothing has been done. I would like to know where the minijster gets the information that leads him to call these men deserters, and whether he intends to pay them their wages.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
being a military man with a very fine record at the front, knows very well the definition of "deserter." When a soldier deserts from the front line no investigation is necessary.
1 Mr. POWER: A court-martial ijs necessary.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Except a courtmartial. If a soldier deserts my hon. friend knows what the penalty is.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But even in the army a
man is never condemned unheard.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have a slight
knowledge of military matters myself, and I say that if a man deserted in the front- line he would be court-martialled and shot at dawn. Here was a ship on a mission of mercy to people almost on the verge of starvation, and the men were in no danger whatever. Apparently these sixteen men got tired of being stuck in the ice on board the Montcalm, deserted, and had no desire to return to their ship. I have no words strong enough to express my condemnation of such action. Seamen ajs a class generally perform their duty, but these men failed when they were most urgently needed. I am convinced that the department and the captain were justified in not paying these deserters their wages, and they must consider themselves lucky in escaping prosecution.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But the hon. minister has told uis that these men are deserters, although they have never been tried and convicted. I am sure he must have some information to justify his use of such a harsh term, and, being a fair-minded man, I hope he will give the committee the advantage of that information so that we may form our own judgment.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Well, if the hon. member is of the opinion that my department should prosecute these men, I am

quite willing to do so; then they will have a fair trial before . a proper tribunal.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, I am of the opinion that the department should prosecute them, hut I am of the opinion that the minister, before branding them as deserters, should have held some investigation; should have had what is equivalent to a military court martial; should at least have become acquainted with the facts; should have heard the excuse given by the men. Their excuse seems to be a fairly reasonable one. I do not know anything about it, but-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: What is it?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is said that their ship was apparently stuck fast in the ice and that the captain consented to their going for a walk on the ice; that would be a legitimate thing for the captain to do, I suppose, especially in view of the fact that the men had been cooped up in the boat for several weeks. In those circumstances a walk on the ice would be a good thing for the crew. Well, they went out for the walk and when they attempted to return [DOT]they found that there was a break in the ice which prevented them from reaching the ship. Therefore they went ashore, and judging from the reports, they suffered almost incredible hardships in doing so. There seems to be a prima facie case in favour of their having a reasonable excuse for their so-called desertion. The minister might have made an investigation; might have looked into the matter before he branded these men as deserters. I quite agree that they should not be excused if they deliberately deserted the ship, but in any case they should be given a chance; they should be given a hearing.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The report of Captain Hearn does not in any way state that the men went out for a little exercise on the ice and were unable to return. Captain Hearn reports-and he is one of the best captains that we have-that these men did not go for a walk except with the intention of taking a long walk to reach the shore and not to return to the ship.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Have any protests been received from members of the crew? Have any demands been received from them regarding their pay?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Leaving aside the question of desertion, I understand, then, that the department is willing to accept the captain's statement so far as pay is concerned. The captain says that we do not owe these men any money; therefore we shall not pay them. Is that the case?
Mr. BALLANTYNE;: Does the hon. member want an investigation, which will prove rather serious for the men? I shall be very glad to see that an investigation is held.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the men have demanded their pay I think they should be given an investigation. It would be more satisfactory for all concerned if that were done.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It will be done.


William Stevens Fielding: On this item I would like to direct attention to a matter in which my constituents are interested-not by way of complaint, because it is a matter in which the minister has been very considerate and courteous; but I want to speak now with a view of helping him to render even more efficient service in the future. In an ordinary winter the ports on the south shore of Nova Scotia are usually open. But there are times when as a result ot severe cold-we have lately had several winters of that kind-these ports are closed. For example, during the past winter the port of Shelburne, where large shipbuilding operations are carried on, was closed for a few days; and the port of Lookeport, the centre of large fishing operations, also was closed. A year ago I brought this matter to the minister's attention and he very kindly gave instructions to the fleet at Halifax to do the best they could to keep these harbours open, and I know that he did the same thing during the past winter. But the trouble is that he has not the necessary equipment; the small vessels which are available for the purpose are useful only when the ice is exceedingly thin-in fact, if the ice is formed at all these vessels are not suited to the purpose. Although these are times of economy, there are some things in which we cannot very well economize. 1 think it is important that the Department of Marine should have one or two vessels, not entirely for icebreaking, but of sufficient power to be used as icebreakers in the cases to which I refer. I suggest that my hon. friend see that he has available for future winters a vessel of somewhat better power than those which have been used in the past so ' that these ports may be kept open. The matter is important in a business way. The fishing business, for example, is developing very rapidly, and if a port which is made

the headquarters of a large fishing fleet is closed by ice for some days, it is a matter of more than local importance; it affects wide interests. The shipbuilding operations also at Shelburne should not be interfered with in this way. I repeat' that I am not complaining; on the contrary I wish to express appreciation of the efforts the minister has made in this direction. I hope that in the coming winter he will have a better equipment available in order that more efficient service may be given.
Mr. BALLANTYNlE: The hon. member has stated the case fairly and correctly. There is no doubt that the Department of Marine ought to have more icebreakers than it has; at any rate, it ought to have ships of sufficient power to break the ice, especially at the ports of Shelburne and Lockeport. We are short of boats of that kind, but I will take into my very best consideration the remarks which the hon. member has made. Every effort will be made to have in that locality when necessary a vessel of sufficient strength to break the ice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I referred a moment ago to the fair-wages resolution which had been adopted toy the House. I have obtained a copy of the resolution, and I find that I was correct in saying that it was adopted twenty years ago. The resolution was introduced on March 22, 1900, and passed on July 17. It reads as follows:
That all Government contracts should contain such conditions as will prevent abuses which may arise from the subletting of such contracts, and that every effort should be made to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out, and that this House cordially concurs in such policy, and deems it the duty of the Government to take immediate steps to give effect thereto.
It is hereby declared that the work to which the foregoing policy shall apply includes not only work undertaken by the Government itself, but also all works aided by grant of Dominion public funds.
During the years that I had to do with the Department of Labour, I remember, the department used to receive from the different spending departments of the Government requests that the fair-wage officer of the department should go to localities in which public work was to be undertaken and ascertain the current rates of wages. Then,'when tenders were called for, a schedule was attached as part of the specifications fixing current rates of wages, and in the case of clothing contracts, a minimum wage was inserted in the contract. That is

the manner in which the different departments sought to carry out the terms of this resolution. Does the minister's department award contracts in compliance with this resolution, or has the resolution been allowed to lapse during the war, like a good many other things that were done for the protection of labour and the protection of public funds?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That system has been and is toeing followed in connection with what little purchasing is lift in the hands of the Department of Marine. As the hon. gentleman knows, practically all purchases are now made, as they were during the war, by the War Purchasing Commission. I cannot say for the moment whether the War Purchasing Commission are familiar with the resolution referred to by the hon. member; in any case, it will be my pleasure to see that they are informed of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with the repairing of ships, and the like, does the minister require the officers of his department to see that schedules are inserted in the contracts specifying the wages that are to be paid to. the men engaged in the work?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I could quite understand the necessity of just such a statute as that twenty years ago, and I would take no exception whatever to it now; but the highest scale of wages is always paid. There has been, and there exists to-day, a great shortage of skilled and unskilled labour, and the highest price is always paid for any woik performed by the Government or by shipbuilders repairing ships for the Government. They are forced to pay the current scale of wages otherwise they would be unable to obtain men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just .one feature that I would draw to the attention of the minister in that connection. Where tenders are called for and contracts awarded to the lowest tenderer, unless some schedule is inserted specifying the current wage, if there happens to be, amongst the number who tender, a contractor who, perhaps, is not as considerate of his labour as the others, and is prepared to sweat his labour, such a contractor gets an undue advantage by virtue of his meanness over other contractors who wish to deal in a fair manner with their labour. That is the reason why I think that, even at a time such as the present when labour may be scarce, it is desirable to follow rigid-

ly a resolution of the House in the particulars mentioned.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My department, of
course, is aware of the prevailing wage for every contract that is let, that is, the wages that are being paid for a contract that has been let to any particular firm. So far as possible, we try to see that fair wages are paid, and I have not heard of any complaints.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to draw the attention of the minister to a question of considerable interest in my constituency, and I think it will come under this item. About ten or twelve years ago, it was found advisable to maintain a vessel at Canso in case of accident to the winter fishing. My hon. friend is aware that in winter snow storms occur very suddenly. You may have a bright clear morning when the fleet goes out and before three or four o'clock in the afternoon there may be a severe snow storm which would make it difficult for the boats to get back to land. Canso may be said to be the headquarters of the winter fishing. I think it is the only port in Nova (Scotia where winter fishing is carried on through the whole of the months of December and January until the ice is moving so much in February and March that fishing has to be abandoned; but winter fishing is a very profitable part of the fishing industry in that locality. It is to some extent a new industry, because years ago the fishermen never attempted to carry on winter fishing; they closed up their business in the late fall and pulled up their boats, and nothing more was done until the spring. But it was discovered that haddock fishing is better in the winter than at any other time, and that it is a profitable branch of the fishing industry. During the Administration of Six Wilfrid Laur-ier, this matter was represented to the department over which my hon. friend presides, and at that time a boat known as the " 33 " was used for that purpose. It was one of the Scotch drifters that was brought out from the Old Country for experimental purposes, and it served the purpose very well. It was kept under steam at Canso, so that if a storm came up during the day, the " 33 " could go out to the fleet, and the rest of the boats could follow the leader .into the harbour. There have been cases where it looked as if a very serious loss of life might have taken place on an occasion of that kind. I understand the " .33 " has been sold and is no longer one
of the Government's boats. Has the minister abandoned the idea of protecting the winter fishing, or is it the policy of the department to continue the practice that has been observed for so many years?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will be good enough to bring the question up again when I am on my Fishery Estimates, I will look into the matter and I shall be prepared to give him a more definite reply than what I am able to do at the moment. He is quite correct in stating that the " 33" has been sold.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not So much concerned about the " 33 " being sold. I think it would have been better if she had not been sold, but my inquiry is, whether the department has any plan to continue that service, or whether the minister favours the continuance of the service.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
will realize that I could not- give him a direct answer until I have an opportunity of looking into what has been done during the past and the circumstances as they exist to-day. I will, with pleasure, look into the matter and shall be prepared to give a definite answer when the Fishery Estimates are under the consideration of the committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to ask the , minister a question somewhat along the line mentioned by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) as to the uniformity of wages on ships in the employ of or owned by the Government. There is, as the minister knows, a ship called the Tyrrian under the control of and owned by the Department of Public Works and she has quite a crew. Her particular business is the repairing of cables around the coast -for instance the cable between the Magdalen Islands and Cape North. Her crew are continually complaining that they are not receiving the same rate of wages as men employed on similar ships in the Marine Service, and they are continually writing me letters along that line. What is the scale of wages, say on the Montcalm, for the captain and officers down to the men?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: A conference was
recently held between the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Public Works and of the Department of Marine and of the Naval Service in order to see if a uniform scale of wages could not be arrived at. Heretofore, there has not been that unity of purpose, and I know that a variation exists in the scale of wages paid

in the various departments, but now we are endeavouring to frame a uniform scale. The rate of wages paid on the steamer Montcalm is as follows: The captain gets $140 a month; the first officer, $100; the second officer, $75; and the chief engineer, $130. I am unable to state what wages are paid on the steamer to which the hon. member has just referred, because that belongs to the Department of Public Works.
Mr. iMcKENZIE:	I did not expect the
minister would have that information. There is a chief steward on "The Tyrrian." Is there such an officer on "The Montcalm," and if so, what salary does he get?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes; $70 a month.
(Mr. CHISHOLM:	I understand the
minister is in thfe habit of employing steamers for icebreaking purposes. Last winter he employed a steamer from my part of the country to go up to the southern coast of Nova Scotia. What is the policy of the department when steamers so employed get wrecked? Does the department pay for the damages? I think this vessel was called the "Kinburn."


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not aware that any such steamer was hired by the Department of Marine.
Mr. iCHLSMGLM:	What department of
the Government would employ a steamer of that kind?


Mr. BALL ANT YN  E@: That is very difficult to answer, but I will endeavour to find out. It was not the Department of Marine.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The reason I ask is
that I know this steamer was employed in breaking .ice around one of the harbours on the southern coast of Nova Scotia, and I think a second steamer was engaged from the port of Halifax. I think both s'teamers were wrecked. They were a failure, and could not do very much work as they were not fitted for that purpose. What I want to find out is whether the Government pays for the damages ships suffer while so employed.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will endeavour
to find out by whom the ships were engaged.
Mir. ,7. H. SINCLAIR:	Does the War
Purchasing Commission purchase the provisions and supplies for these ships?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The War Purchasing Commission does not purchase supplies for the 'Government ships of the Marine Department; the steward purchases supplies by tender.

- Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:	What kind of
supplies does the War Purchasing 'Commission purchase for the Marine 'Department? Does it purchase provisions of any kind?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No. They only
purchase oils and coal, but never provisions.
'Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:	The commission
has made a report to the House, which they call a memorandum, regarding the proposed Purchasing Board for Canada. In report they have a table showing what they have been buying during the past year. The 'Marine Department is men-Moned in connection with purchases as fo1-lows: provisions to the extent of $115,759, dry goods $17,597, hardware $213,911, mechanical supplies $27,220, scientific supplies $5,573, miscellaneous $126,052; total $506,1'12. Can the minister tell us what these supplies were for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I can only say that the War Purchasing Commission has not bought any supplies for the Government ships of the 'Marine Department. They may have been in error in saying "Marine." They may have meant "Naval Service." The War Purchasing Commission has nothing whatever to do with the buying of provisions for the Government ships of the Marine Department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are we to understand
that this highly efficient and most capable body, the War Purchasing Commission, has charged the Marine Department with some $500,000 of goods that they never received? I would ask the President of the Pirivy Oouneil to take particular note of that, because for some two or three years his specialty has been to preach about the great reforms that will be accomplished by having a commission of this kind. Of course, a new system of book-keeping may have been devised, by which one department is charged for the goods received by another, making confusion worse confounded. I am very glad this information has been brought out, as it must be of interest to the hon. gentleman who is the father and godfather and grandfather of the legislation with respect to the Purchasing Board.
Examiners of masters and mates, $18,000.
Mr. McTiSAAC:	How many examiners
are there in Prince Edward Island, and what salaries do they receive?
'Mr. BALLANTYNE: Captain Alexander Cameron is the name of the examiner at Charlottetown.


Alexander William Chisholm: What are the names of all the stations?
Mr. BIAILLAiNTYNE:	Halifax, Quebec,
Yarmouth, North Sydney, Charlottetown, St. John, N.B., Toronto, Collingwood, Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson and Edmonton.


John Howard Sinclair: How many masters and mates received certificates at these stations during the past year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certificates have
been issued as follows:
Sea-going.
Master.
For any class of vessel (ordinary)	
For fore-and-aft vessels only	 3
For steamships only	 5
Mate.	2nd Mate. Total.
3	2
4	2
9	10
Coasting.
For square-rigged vessels	
For fore-and-aift rigged vessels	
For passenger steamers	
For freight steamers	
For tug-boats	
3
41
41
16	14	43
4
0
88	76	164
Inland Waters.
For passenger steamers	
15	24For freight steamers	
2	0For tug-boats	
11	028	24	52
Minor Inland Waters.
For passenger steamers	
7	12For freight steamers	
1	0For tug-boats	
18	0For temporary certificates	
47	073	12Total


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this item cover the salaries of the men who are engaged as teachers and examiners of masters and mates?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. It is for the examiners, stenographers, office rent, telephone, travelling, etc.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not know that I have ever had the opportunity of bringing to the notice of the minister some particulars with respect to the examiner and teacher at the station in my own town. We have a very respectable gentleman there, well advanced in years, but quite capable as a teacher. He is an old shipmaster and deep sea man. He is not now able to do any hard work, as he has been the victim of rheumatism, but he is a capable teacher and is very bright. He depends entirely for his living, I believe, on what he gets from the Government for his work as examiner and teacher. His salary is very -small. I should like /to find out what it is, -and if there is any chance of increasing it, *and whether it has been increased within the last few years.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister not think that under present conditions $300 is a very small allowance for a man who has to support a family? He must be a first-class man or the position cannot be properly filled. It is useless to put any man in charge of a school of that kind unless he knows his business, and I am sure that Captain Sutherland is a first-class mariner. The station is an important one where there are a number of seamen, and in the summer time quite a number of people residing in the town go to it. It is desirable to keep the school up, and I trust that the minister will give this man some consideration. Instead of $300 he should be receiving $600.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I overlooked the fact that Captain Sutherland, in addition to the $300 which he receives, is also given $250 for his lectures, and I am informed that very many examinations do not take place at that point, the total number during the past year having been eight. The captain's total remuneration amounts to $550.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, it requires only $50 more to bring it up to the modest standard I -suggest.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister has mentioned several stations. Is there at each of these stations a school where navigation is taught?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.
Investigations into wrecks, $12,300.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is this item for?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Whenever a wreck occurs it is at once reported to the Marine Department, and the Wreck Commissioner, Captain Demers, is sent to hold an investigation. The amount I am asking the committee to vote is to provide for the Wreck Commissioner's salary, travelling expenses, and all expenditures connected with the wrecks that occur during the year. If it is discovered that the captain or the pilot is at fault, the Wreck Commissioner has power to suspend him or to cancel his certificate altogether, or for a certain period, as he sees fit, according to the gravity of the case.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister cannot mean that Captain Demers is sent to investigate every wreck.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: So far as it is possible to do so. I would not expect him to investigate the wreck of a tug, but in the case of a steamer of any size he certainly would make an investigation.


Alexander William Chisholm: In the case of these wrecks that do not come within his purview, what officer is employed?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Any officer who may be delegated by the Government to hold such investigations. But in the case of wrecks of vessels of considerable tonnage, such as sea-going vessels, it is the duty of the Wreck Commissioner to make investigations.


John Ewen Sinclair: Has the department any policy for providing suitable wrecking craft on the Atlantic coast? We have a merchant marine in which we have invested almost 6100,000,000, and on the Atlantic coast we have no suitable craft for salvaging, and no proper appliances for assisting vessels that are wrecked. In view of the fact that we are often tied up in the shipping business, I think it would be wise to make provision for suitable appliances in order that we might be able to attend properly to wrecked vessels, and save them whenever possible.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government
have a wrecking plant on the Pacific coast and one at Quebec. It has none at Halifax

or on the Atlantic coast, because there are several good wrecking firms in the city of Halifax, which are quite able to look after any wrecks that occur, without calling on the Government for assistance,


Alexander William Chisholm: Has the Dominion Coal Company any appliances of this kind, or did they in the past receive any subsidy from the Government for this work?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They did receive a subsidy in the past, but it is no longer given.
Expenses of schools of navigation, $8,000.


Mr. McISAAC:: Who conducts the School of Navigation in Charlottetown, P.E.I., and what does it cost?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is a private school in Charlottetown which the Government does not support.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this 68,000 to provide for the same service a-s is included in the items we have already passed?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The item which we have already passed has reference to schools for the examination of those candidates who come up to qualify as masters and mates. The present item provides for schools where those men are taught the rules of navigation. Schools are located at St. John, N.B., Halifax, Yarmouth, Quebec, Kingston, Vancouver, North Sydney, and Col-lingwood.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is no school at Charlottetown?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Only a private
school.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does the department give any assistance to private schools? I know that several seamen who were anxious to study navigation applied to a master mariner to open a school in Prince Edward Island and I should like to know if it is the policy of the department to assist private schools in any way.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is not the policy of the department to give assistance to private schools.


John Ewen Sinclair: They are doing nothing in that respect?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some of this money, I presume, goes to the technical school in the city of Halifax. I understand that navigation is taught in the provincial technical school in that city. How much money is

the Government paying to that institution? And are we getting a return for it? Along the same line, and with a view to economy,
I suppose we will cut down largely in the expenditure upon the unnecessary education that we have been bestowing upon these masters and mates. We have passed legislation which relieves the minister of any necessity of providing instruction or examination for masters and mates and there should be retrenchment along that line. The minister will probably tell us what saving he expects to make by reason of the reduction that has been made in the requirements with reference to masters and mates. Whether he will answer that question or not, perhaps he will give us some information as to what is being done at this School of Technology and whether he thinks it necessary to assist education in this way.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In regard to the
Halifax school; the Department of Marine pays Captain John Symonds, instructor, $100 per month. That is the only contribution the Government makes to that school which is connected with the Halifax University. I have no hesitation in answering the hon. gentleman's other question in regard to the service certificates that may be granted to masters and mates. Masters and mates have to come up for examination just the same as they always did, and therefore the expense remains the same.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had supposed that
both of these examinations would be conducted over the long distance telephone and that there would be a saving in travelling expenses and that sort of thing. Does the minister think it necessary to appoint an officer whose special business it will be to examine into this' new position? I am quite serious about this. I am not aware that he himself is a nautical man but there may be some nautical men in his department. I think it is highly desirable that there should be somebody who is very keen and capable, and who has a knowledge of marine affairs, to examine these men coming up under the new law.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have three examiners now in the province of Nova Scotia and if the department thinks they are not sufficient we will increase the number, because no man will be granted a certificate unless he can pass the necessary rigid examination.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The expense of the schools of navigation is $8,000 a year and that of the examiners and mates $18,000, making 103*
a total of $26,000. Last year 207 masters and mates passed the examination. Twenty-six thousand dollars for 207 masters and mates represents an expenditure of over $100 each. What benefit has the country got from this? What contribution are the masters and mates making towards this expense? Are they paying anything to attend these schools, or any fee to be allowed to try the examination, or is the country paying everything?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is only a small fee of $5 for a mate and $10 for a master. The figure 207 that I gave was only for ocean-going and. coasting steamers. If I had given the figures for the inland and minor waters the total would be 344. Now that the Government are the owners of such a large mercantile marine, and as we have some twenty-five or thirty ships already in commission, if it were not for the desire to economize in every direction, the 'Government would be justified in spending a much larger sum for these schools and for the examination of masters and mates, because I am sure I am expressing the
10	p.m. view of all hon. members when I say that we would like to see not only 'Government ships but all ships under Canadian register manned as far as possible by Canadians. We are offering this tuition at such an extremely low figure to encourage Canadians to take up a seafaring career.


John Howard Sinclair: The extraordinary thing about these figures is that it costs $8,000 to teach the men navigation and $18,000 to examine them. I have had some experience in educational matters, as I was an educationalist for a part of my life. The expensive thing is the education and not the examination. If the minister would reverse the process and spend $18,000 in teaching the subject and $8,000 on the examination of the students after they are taught, it would be more reasonable. Will the minister explain why he expends so much money on examinations and so little on education?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: A very large number who come up for examination for masters and mates do not attend schools, and that explains the difference between the two items.
To provide for the temporary relief of distressed seamen and to cover the expenses of shipping forms, $3,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: Will the minister explain this item?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: When sailors are in distress owing to their ships having been wrecked, the department 'brings them to the nearest port and pays their expense. Sometimes we have to provide clothing for them.


Alexander William Chisholm: Was anything spent on *this item last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The amount was
$2,905 to the end of March.


Alexander William Chisholm: This does not include medical attendance; that comes under another item?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That comes under another item.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand the practice to be that any moneys expended in this way aTe recoverable from the owner of the vessel. Supposing a ship is wrecked on the Nova Scotia coast and $1,000 has to be expended by the Department in looking after the seamen, is there not-an. arrangement by which that money is recoverable from the shipowner?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, the hon. member is quite right, and we do recover wherever we can.


Alexander William Chisholm: My hon. friend mentions English ships. Doe$ it not include our own ships?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.
Registration of shipping, $6,000.


John Howard Sinclair: A proposal was made recently to appoint a surveyor or a measurer-I do not know just what is the official title-for measuring ships, at Isaacs Harbour, which is some distance away from any registry available for the shipbuilders in that locality. I would like to know if anything has been done in that matter.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The matter is still
under consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend will probably have in his office the facts showing the necessity of having some one appointed at that point. It is some seventy miles from Canso, and a longer distance from the next office westerly, in fact, I do not think there is any registry office between Canso and Halifax, and that district is very badly off for some one to examine and measure small vessels built in the locality. It becomes difficult sometimes to find an officer, and as he has to travel long distances to do the work unnecessary expense is incurred by the shipbuilders. Under the present regulations the builder has to bear

the expenses of the survey. It is important that this accommodation should be given to the people of that coast.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will be very glad to look into the matter.
Mr. 'CHISHOLM : There is a certain class of officers in the service whose duty it is to do this work. Who are they? For instance, in my own constituency, if we have a small vessel to be measured, to whom do we apply?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is a particular class of men engaged in that work, and my hon. friend would apply to the collector of customs for a measuring surveyor to be sent.


Alexander William Chisholm: Then you have officers known ajs measuring surveyors?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is this a highly technical profession?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Fairly so.


Alexander William Chisholm: In cases such as my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) has referred to- and I have a similar case in my own constituency-it has often occurred to me that if it i)S not a highly technical process some of the collectors of customs might do the work. The collectors at Cheticamp and Mar-garee, I understand, do this work and report to the department, so saving the expense and affording great convenience to the people.	-	!


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, quite a number of customs officials do that work.


Alexander William Chisholm: Supposing I want to have one of those officers authorized to do this work, what should I do?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member would apply to the customs house if he wanted an official to make a survey. If he wanted some one appointed, that power is vested in the Governor in Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some years ago we had an official of this kind in the city of Sydney, Mr. Charles Hill, whom no doubt my hon. friend and the deputy minister will remember. He died; and I am not aware of anybody having been appointed in his place.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. F. I. Stewart has been appointed.
Inspection of live stock shipments, $3y00'0.


James Alexander Robb: What are the duties of these live stock inspectors, and where is their work carried on?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Their duties are to see that suitable accommodation is provided for the shipment of cattle and that proper precautions are taken in reference to their health and safe carraige.


John Howard Sinclair: At what ports?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Montreal.


John Howard Sinclair: Is no provision made for inspection anywhere else?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Apart from the shipments that go out of the port of Montreal, we have practically no cattle shipments abroad.


John Howard Sinclair: None from St. John?


Alexander William Chisholm: None, for instance,
from North Sydney to Newfoundland?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If there are any live stock shipments they must be very small in number. I thought it questionable whether we should retain this vote even for such an important port as Montreal, but after looking into the matter to-day I think we are justified in continuing it there, but I do not think we would be justified in establishing similar inspection at any other port.


James Alexander Robb: At a recent session it was brought to the attention of the minister that cattle shippers were complaining oi the lack of space for cattle shipments in our Government merchant marine, which shipments had in consequence to be diverted to the port of New York. If we are not going to have any cattle space in our merchant marine, the question very naturally arises: Why should we have the inspectors?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have taken the matter up with the officials of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to see if they cannot equip their ships to carry live stock. The Canadian Pacific, the White Star, the Cunard, and a number of other steamship lines carry live stock, and that is the reason we have to keep these inspectors at Montreal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is quite evident that the minister is not familiar with the trade of the Maritime Provinces. The port of North Sydney in its live stock shipments compares more than favourably with the port of Montreal.


Alexander William Chisholm: That is what I thought.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have an
official in the city of Sydney, Doctor Thurston, a very capable veterinary surgeon,
who established a very fine reeord overseas. He is in some way connected with the Government service, but I do not know exactly what his office is. 'Sydney is seventeen miles by railway and five miles by water from North Sydney, and sometimes it is very inconvenient to be obliged to wait until Doctor Thurston can come to North Sydney to make inspections. I would not like to ask for anything that would in any way interfere with the pay or status of Doctor Thurston, because he is a very capable official and a returned soldier with a very fine record, but I would like to ask the minister to consider the advisability of appointing an officer at North Sydney for this work. It certainly would be a convenience to shippers of cattle via North Sydney to have a man there who would do the work at once and avoid any delays.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The officer the
hon. member refers to is a health of animals officer, under the Department of Agriculture. This item pertains to the equipment of ships for the safety of live stock on long sea voyages.
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.


Mr. MACEENZIE EING:: This is an
item of considerable importance; possibly it had better stand.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Very well.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is understood that .any member who is absent may discuss ,any other items than the two which are reserved-even the items that have been passed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alexander William Chisholm: That has been the
practice in the past.


John Warwick King: If there is
any doubt in the mind of any one, I think that a reference to Hansard to-morrow will show that I pointed out that we did not care to block any of these items and that if the minister was willing to allow a subsequent discussion of any of the items that we might pass to-night in connection with the items that were reserved, we would allow them to pass. The minister gave that undertaking.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is right.
Item stands.
Unforeseen expenses, $5,000.


John Warwick King: Is there any way in which these unforeseen expenses

are_ accounted for? I notice that the Customs Department have an appropriation for an amount to be paid to the Department of Justice " to be disbursed by and *accounted for to it, for secret preventive service." I do not observe any vote in other departments for unforeseen expenses of that sort.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The unforeseen expenses for 1919-20 included $943.65 to P. S. Ross and Sons, auditors, of Montreal. I sent- them down to St. John to make an audit of the books there, because at that time I was introducing a Bill to nationalize the harbour of St. John. Then there are other accounts for printing and for professional services of Mr. R. V. Sinclair. The total was $1,745.68.


John Howard Sinclair: Some of the
amounts expended last year as " unforeseen expenses " would appear to be really not unforeseen, such as printing and stationery; printing of the report on the harbour of Vancouver. These items amount to $273.97. I see no reason why expenditure of that kind should be put down as " unforeseen."
i Mr. BALLANTYNE:	The amount for
printing is very small. The payment to P. S. Ross and Sons could not have been foreseen. That was the largest amount; the next largest was: Bank of Montreal, deposit security, $500.


John Howard Sinclair: I see that H. R. Silver, of Halifax, was paid $298.07 for travelling expenses and disbursements in connection with Ship's Licensing Committee. What was that committee?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: During the war
it was thought desirable to require ships clearing from Halifax to have a license to do so. That requirement does not now exist.
Mr. J. H, SINCLAIR:	Did this officer
grant the licenses?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes. All he got
was his travelling expenses.
Amounts required for two motor patrol vessels for buoy and lighthouse service in British Columbia, $150,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That item
might stand.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be glad to let it stand if the leader of the Opposition iso desires, but it is not a controversial matter. It is a re-vote from last year.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: How much was spent
last year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Nothing.


John Howard Sinclair: Where are these boats to be built?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In British. Columbia.


John Howard Sinclair: What will be their size and horse-power?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 95 feet long; 100 horse-power.	,


John Howard Sinclair: How many motor boats of that character has the minister now in this service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: These are the first that the department has ordered for the buoy service.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended that these boats shall be provided for the Atlantic coast as well as the Pacific?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, not now.


John Howard Sinclair: Why are these
boats provided for the Pacific coast and not for the Atlantic?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There are inland
waters in British Columbia upon which these small boats may operate. Their use would not be feasible upon the Atlantic coast.


John Howard Sinclair: Will they be of
wood or steel?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Wood.
River St. Lawrence ship channel-maintenance and operating dredging fleet, $478,000.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: How many dredges are already in operation?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Last year we had
the following dredges in operation on the St. Lawrence ship channel: 3 elevator dredges with tugs; I suction self-propelling hopper dredge; 1 self-propelling coal barge; 2 inspection sweeping steamers; 2 stone elevators; floating shop; 1 rock cutter.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Does the Government *antemplate the construction of any new dredges for the St. Lawrence channel this year?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I wish it were possible to give the hon. member an affirmative answer. But we are trying to keep down expenses; we are not going to construct any new dredges, although they are needed.
Mr, DECHENE:	I asked the question
because I was informed by a mariner that

there was at Sorel a dredge all ready to be put into service.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is at Sorel a dredge partially completed by the Vickers Company, but we are not going ahead with if as we are trying to economize.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do all the dredges belong to the department, or are any owned by private companies?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They are all owned by the Government.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is any work done by companies as such?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.
Mr. DECHENSe : How much money has already been spent in the construction of that dredge?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I should say at
least $100,000; but it is a very expensive dredge, and the question of extras comes up now owing to the fact that my predecessor, quite properly, owing to the war, gave instructions to the Vickers Company at Montreal to discontinue work on this dredge.
I have since given instructions not to proceed with it because it would cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I do not think the financial condition of the country would warrant us in spending such a large amount of money at the present time.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Where are these dredges repaired now?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: At Sorel.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I remember the time
when the Department of Public Works did all the dredging. Does the Department of Marine do all the dredging of the St. Lawrence now, or is there a line of demarcation between the work done by the two departments?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Department of
Marine do all the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel from Montreal to a considerable distance below Quebec, something around 342 miles.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister
give us some idea of the system followed in connection with this dredging? We in the Maritime Provinces are very much interested in this artery of commerce, the St. Lawrence, and should like to know the system that is followed in the expenditure of this money. Is it expended in keeping the channel clear of any possible impediment -that might come into the channel, or
is it used for deepening and widening the channel, or what might be called new work?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The annual expenditure' under this vote is for deepening and widening the channel, and at the present time we have at low water thirty feet of water in the channel from Montreal to the sea; but dredging is being continued in order to reach a depth of thirty-five feet, and the curves are also being widened.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: : Once work of this character is completed down to thirty or thirty-five feet, does it .remain clear or does the minister find that he has to go over the work and scrape the channel again shortly after the work has been done?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The channel has
remained clear and will remain clear entirely throughout the year. There is a place called Cap Madeleine where it silts ,in a little.	.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Was the depth of thirty feet maintained, for instance during the last fifteen years? I understand that the St. Lawrence channel had an average depth of thirty feet from Montreal to Quebec. The minister says that once the depth is reached, that is, when the channel is dug, if I may use that word, it remains clear, with the exception of this spot that he mentioned. Then the whole work is being done at this very spot.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the object of the other dredging?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The department intends to dredge the St. Lawrence ship channel to a depth of thirty-five feet, and we have not accomplished that yet by any means. We have thirty feet now at low water. At certain parts of the channel, for instance, at a place called Cap la Roch, rock is being taken out, and we are widening the channel at the curves because the steamers are becoming larger all the time.


John Howard Sinclair: All the way to
Montreal?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: What effect does the deepening of the channel have on the water? I saw in the press a statement that when you deepened the channel down below the water above Is apt to become shallower.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That statement
has often been made, but I have never been able to find any real foundation foT it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In the opinion of the
minister how long will it take to reach a depth of thirty-five feet between Quebec and Montreal at the rate work is going on now, year after year? I understand the channel was thirty feet deep fifteen years ago, and every summer we have been spending half a million dollars, more or less, on dredging and it seems we have not made any progress in that regard. The minister mentions now that the channel is still thirty feet deep.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member
is quite right. The channel has been thirty feet in depth for a number of years; but we have to continue the work until we have the channel dredged to a depth of thirty-five feet, and as longer steamers are constantly being built, we have to widen the channel at various points. I do not think the work will ever be absolutely completed; but just how many years it will take to dredge the channel to a depth of thirty-five feet, and to make it the width that the Government think it ought to be, depends altogether on the generosity of Parliament. We used to have an appropriation as large as $1,000,000 for this work; now it has been reduced to $478,000. The depth of water during the several months of the season of 1019 was as follows:	In May, 39 feet 7
inches; in June, 36 feet 7 inches; in July, 33 feet 5 inches; in August, 32 feet 4 inches; in September, 32 feet 3 inches; in October, 32 feet 8 inches; in November, 33 feet 5 inches.


John Howard Sinclair: It is a very big undertaking to deepen the St. Lawrence channel five additional feet. Has the minister taken advice as to what the total cost would be? I presume that Parliament is in sympathy with the proposal as this is one of the great works of the country, and we all look forward to the day when the St. Lawrence channel will be thirty-five feet deep, but I should like to have some idea of what it is going to cost us.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Dredging to the
extent of 29,000,000 cubic yards has yet to be done on the channel to bring it to a depth of thirty-five feet.
M,r. BELAND:	What does it cost per
cubic yard now? It used to cost 25 cents per cubic yard twenty years ago.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not want the minister to answer a question like that unless he has an estimate made by a competent engineer.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have here an estimate by competent engineers of the department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How much of that
estimate is rock? Does the engineer report that rock excavations will have to be made in order to obtain that depth?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They have encountered rock at Cap la Roch. We have a width there of from 500 to 550 feet, whereas formerly it was 300 to 400 feet. The total number of cubic yards removed during the season of 1919 was 88,655. The channel was deepened to 30 feet in 1897.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: I understand that during the last six or seven years the Government has been building a new deep water channel from the north shore below the Island of Orleans down to the Lower Traverse. How is that work progressing?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There are seven miles of the north channel yet to be dredged. The new dredge that was referred to a moment ago is now lying partially completed at Sorel. It will have to be completed before the seven miles can be dredged.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is it sand or rock that is being taken out?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Neither, it is what we call heavy boulders.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: To what depth has the channel been dredged?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: About 20 feet, for a distance of over eight miles.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Will no more dredging be done until the new dredge is completed?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We will go on so far as our present plant will permit, but we cannot complete the north channel until the new dredge is finished.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is this new channel to avoid dangerous places?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, there is quite a number that will be avoided.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Some years ago, about 1912 or 1914, some dredging was done from the wharves at Montmagny to the main channel. Dredging was done to a depth of six feet outside the wharves, but the work was never completed to the main channel.
Is it intended to complete this channel for small boats?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That dredging
comes under the Department of Public

Works. We only look after the main ship channel.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to suggest to the minister that possibly it is not wise for this Government and this country to enter into a race with the shipbuilding concerns of the world and go on deepening the St. Lawrence river. I am very anxious indeed that we should have a very spacious entrance to and along the St. Lawrence river, but larger ships are continually being built. Some years ago a ship with a draught of 25 or 28 feet was considered a very large one; it is a large ship to-day. I gather that the minister is now trying to accommodate ships with a draught of 35 feet. It is only a matter of a short time before a much larger ship than that will be built, and then his 35 feet will not be much good unless he goes on dredging still deeper. We are also told that aerial navigation is going to be a factor in the commerce of this country in a very short time. Is it wise, therefore, for us to be spending so much on deepening the St. Lawrence river when we cannot hope to keep pace with the increasing size of ships? Would it not be better for the Canadian people and more helpful for the commerce of Canada if we had a 30-foot waterway from the Atlantic to Port Arthur, for instance, then a 35-foot channel up to Montreal only. I submit that thought to the minister. I think the question of a waterway from Port Arthur to the sea is becoming more and more important every day, and I think it is well worthy of consideration whether we should not construct such a waterway rather than go on deepening the St. Lawrence. It is quite possible that within the next ten or fifteen years, and I say this in all seriousness, the commerce of this country will be largely carried on by aerial navigation, and we may then think ourselves foolish in having spent so much money on deepening the St Lawrence. I feel I am on perfectly firm ground from the national standpoint when I say that it is of more importance to the Canadian people to have this 30-foot waterway from Port Arthur to the sea than a 35-foot channel from the sea to Montreal.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister was going to give me an estimate of the total cost of deepening the St. Lawrence river to 35 feet.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is rather difficult to give an estimate. We have the cost for last year per cubic yard, and we know how much is going to be dredged, but the costs,
of course, vary from year to year. I should say, roughly, about $20,000,000.


Mr. CAHILL:: What does the dredging cost now per cubic yard?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Elevator dredge No. 2, 73 cents per cubic yard; No. 3, 36 cents; No. 5, 73 cents; No. 8, 41 cents.


Frank S. Cahill: Is the difference due to different classes of material or to the different dredges?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Of course, the material varies, and the cost varies with the different dredges. It depends on the material and the bed of the river.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: How many men are engaged on these dredges.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: From eighteen to twenty.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Are all of these men receiving bonus?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The bonus is given only to those who are not getting the prevailing rate of wages, but we are readjusting matters now and shall pay them all a certain wage which will be equal to their former scale of wages together with bonus.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: During the winter are these men laid off completely?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They are laid off
during the winter months.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: They do not get any salary?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


Frank S. Cahill: Are all these dredges on the St. Lawrence?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On the St. Lawrence only.


John Howard Sinclair: What do the men do in the winter season?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: They are laid up at Sorel?


Frank S. Cahill: Are they not on the payroll in winter at all?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Why do you make a difference between men engaged on dredges and those who work on steamers. The men on the steamers are paid half wages in winter, and I do not see why the men on the dredges should not be treated in the same way.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry to have conveyed the impression that the entire

crew of the steamers were given half-pay [DOT]during winter. Only the officers and the chief engineer receives half-pay. The rest of the crew do not draw any pay.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Is that the same on the dredges?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No. The officers and engineers on the dredges do not get anything in winter.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Why the difference?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Because the officers on the dredges are entirely in a different category from the officers on the steamers. The captain on the dredge does his work quite well, but he does not need to know as much about navigation as the captain of a ship.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Some of the government steamers do not go very far from shore, and it does not need any great knowledge of navigation to man them. Two ships stationed at Quarantine do not go very far from shore. They sail between Quebec and Quarantine, some thirty miles, and the dredges have a good deal of hard work to do. The engineers on the dredges have to keep their engines in good order, and they do probably more work than those on some of the steamers. I do not see therefore why there should be such a distinction between men who are doing practically the same kind of work.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It has never been the custom to pay men on the dredges in winter, and I am quite sure hon. members would not have this Government establish a precedent now.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended to continue the bonus system during the present year? I see by the Auditor General's report that the bonus is nearly as large as the wages of the men. It is an extraordinary way of paying ordinary workmen to give them so much wages and a bonus amounting to pretty nearly the same sum.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is not the intention of the department to continue the bor/us system, but simply to pay the prevailing wages.


Mr.   DECHIENE@: Is it the intention of the minister to do more dredging in front of the Quarantine wharves, so that big steamers, instead of being obliged to anchor outside, will be able to come in and unload at the wharves? At present the steamers are bound to anchor in the channel, and

this involves a great deal of inconvenience, and expense in unloading in mid-stream. If dredging were done at the wharves it would save time and a good deal of money.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I must ask my hon. friend to take up this question when the Public Works Estimates are under consideration. It is a subject that does not appertain to the Marine Department.


Mr.   DEOHENIE@: I would suppose that the Minister of Marine would have a good deal to do with the matter o-f dredging. If this work were done it would mean a great saving of time and would be a great convenience. There is no doubt about the urgent necessity of this icebreaker and I would like to get the item passed in order that tenders may be called and if at all possible have the icebreaker ready for next winter.
For the maintenance and improvements of the Sorel shipyard, shops and offices as well as operating expenses, $65,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are things going on at this shipyard in the same old way, and is the same work being done?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The operations carried on at the Sorel shipyards are very much restricted in comparison with former years. We are not doing as much work; we are trying to follow a policy of economy.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister give us an idea as to how much of this money is to be expended in rebuilding or improving shops, and how much will be spent for operating purposes?


James Alexander Robb: I would suggest to the minister that we allow this item to stand until hon. members who desire to speak on it are present. The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) intimated to me a desire to say something in reference to this item.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Very well; I have no objection to letting the item stand.
Item stands.
To provide for the construction of an icebreaking steamer to be used on the River St. Lawrence, $2,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Should we not let this item stand?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have no objection to leaving this item, but the hon. members from Quebec city, who are most interested in it, have expressed their approval. There is no doubt that this icebreaker is needed.
I should like to make as much progress as

possible in view of the fact that we have already let two large items stand.


John Howard Sinclair: What kind of a ship are you going to build and where are you going to build it?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The ship will be similar to the. "J. D. Hazen" that was built some years ago. Just where she will be built, it will toe gratifying to the leader of the Opposition to know, can only be determined after public tenders have been called. The length of the ship will be 275 [DOT]feet, breadth 57 feet 6 inches, depth to mould 32 feet, draught 19 feet 3 inches, deadweight 950 tons, horse-power 8,000 and complement of officers and men about 90.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to remind the minister of his promise that he will see, in connedtion with this particular expenditure, if it is possible to have a vessel which will serve the double purpose of an icebreaker in winter and a car ferry in sumnner. If he can see his way to arrange that it will save a great amount of expense in the end in the matter of a second car ferry and it will be much appreciated by the people of Prince Edward Island.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will thalt ship be much more powerful than those we have to-day?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Many times.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will it keep the channel open all winter to Montreal?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: She could of course go up and down but I do not know whether it is feasible to attempt to keep the river open.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
The Hon. N. W. ROWELL moved the second reading of Bill No. 20 to amend the Opium and Drug Act.
Jacques Bureau: We had thought the House was going to adjourn after these Estimates. I do nolt see why the second reading of this Bill should be taken up now. I have a lot of letters and
11	p.m. communications on this Opium and Drug Act and I would like to say something about it.' The President of the Privy Council is repeating his old trick of taking measures of (this kind up on Friday night when many hon. members are absent from the House. I think he ought not to try and force this Bill through its second reading to-night.


Mr. ROWELL:: If the hon. gentleman had waited he might noit have spoken with the feeling that he has manifested in his remarks. It is not my intention to ask the House to proceed with the second reading to-night but as I intend when the House gets into committee to submit some important amendments to the Bill I thought it would facilitate the consideration of the Bill if I put on record to-night what these amendments are, so that hon. members will have them in Hansard and know the character of the amendments before we proceed with the discussion of the second reading. I therefore arranged with the hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) that the second reading should be formally moved to-night in order that I might put upon Hansard the amendments I intend to ask the committee to consider when the Bill comes 'before it.


Jacques Bureau: And then the second reading will be carried.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I do not ask that the second reading be carried. I had hoped to save the time of the House and to contribute ito the convenience of members by putting these amendments on record.


Jacques Bureau: We appreciate it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I knew my hon. friend would.


Jacques Bureau: The general rule is that when you move the second reading of a Bill it is read a second time. I did not know about any private agreement.


Newton Wesley Rowell: When the resolution upon which the Bill is founded was before the House I explained that the object of the Bill was to enable the Government to carry out its obligation under the International Opium Convention which was signed at The Hague in 1912, and went into effect in January of this year by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty of Peace. Representations have been made by the druggists of the country in reference to the form of the Bill. These representations have been considered and when the Bill goes into committee I intend submitting two amendments. After reading these to the House I intend moving the adjournment of the debate. The amendments will be in the form of two new subsections, first, a subsection which will repeal the existing subsection (1) of section (5) of the Opium and Drug Act of 1911, and will substitute for it a new section which is identical with the original section except that it leaves out all reference to the preservation of a record of the sales and

changes the penalties. The record o>f sales is dealt with in subsection (5-A) in a fuller and more comprehensive way and therefore I propose to leave out those portions of section (5). As the penalties in section (5) and section (5-A) differ, I intend making the penalties under section (5) of the Act of 1911 the same as are now proposed under section (5-A) in the present Bill in order that there may be no confusion in prosecution and no question as to whether, a party is being prosecuted under section (5) or section (5-A). It is thought desirable to have the penalties the same. Therefore the amendment is:
(4) Section 5, subsection 1, of the said Act is1 hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" Any person who deals in any drug, who gives, sells or furnishes any drug to any person other than a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or to a bona fide wholesale druggist, or to a druggist carrying on business in a bona fide drug store, and any druggist who gives, sells or furnishes any drug except upon a written order or prescription signed by a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or who, without the authority of the prescribing physician, veterinary surgeon, or dentist, uses any prescription to sell any drug on more than one occasion, shall be guilty of a criminal offence and shall be liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and costs and not less than five hundred dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for a t^rm not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment."
The other change I propose is to ask the committee to substitute for subsection (4) of the Bill as it was printed the following clause:
The provisions of section five-


Jacques Bureau: Is that the new Bill?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I purpose to substitute a new section for subsection (4) of section 5A as follows:
" (4) (a) The provisions of section five and of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section shall not apply to the possession, sale, or distribution by a druggist carrying on a business in a bona fide drug store of preparations and remedies which do not contain more than two grains of opium or more than one-fourth of a grain of morphine, or more than one-eighth of a grain of heroin, or more than one grain of codeine, or any salt or derivative of any of them in one fluid ounce, or, if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ouncfe; or to liniments, ointments, or other preparations which are prepared for external skin use only, which do not contain cocaine or any of its salts or preparations, but every such remedy or preparation as mentioned in this section, must contain active medicinal drugs other than narcotic in sufficient proportion to confer upon the preparation or remedy valuable medicinal qualities, other than those possessd by the narcotic drugs alone;

provided, however, that it shall be an offence against this Act to sell, or offer for sale, any remedy or preparation intended for internal use, which contains opium, morphine, heroin or codeine, unless there be printed in a conspicuous place on .an inseparable part of the main panel of the label and wrapper of the bottle, box, or other container, and in letters of the same size and visability as the word that dominates the label, in (the article) the following words:-
It is unlawful to administer this preparation to a child under two years of age as it contains (insert name of drug) and Is dangerous to its life.
Provided, further, that the Governor in Council may, by regulation to be published in the Canada Gazette, extend and apply the provisions of the said paragraphs (e) and (f) to any preparation named or described in such regulation.
(b)	It shall be an offence against this Act for any person to sell for administration to a child under two years of age, or to administer to any such child any remedy or preparation containing opium, morphine, heroin or codeine the sale of which is permitted by this subsection.
(c)	Nothing in this Act shall contravene or affect any provisions of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act or any amendments thereto.
Just a word in explanation of that amendment. The International Opium Convention does not apply to the sale of preparations containing a limited quantity of these drugs. The quantities mentioned in this subsection are smaller than those mentioned in the Treaty, but are the same as those mentioned in the Harrison Act-the American Act passed some two or three years ago to deal with this same subject matter.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to: debate adjourned.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Monday, April 26, 1920.